Opinion
21-CV-60729-RAR
02-08-2022
MC & VC CORP., Plaintiff, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO., Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 55] (“Report”), filed on January 24, 2022. The Report recommends that Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs Pursuant to Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 [ECF No. 53] (“Motion”) be granted and that the Court award Defendant costs in the amount of $1,054.34 against Plaintiff. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss's findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 5. Neither party objected to the Report.
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress's intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
Because the parties have no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss's findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 55] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion [ECF No. 53] is GRANTED. Defendant is awarded taxable costs in the amount of $1,054.34 against Plaintiff.
DONE AND ORDERED.