From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commodity Forwarders, Inc. v. Burbano Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Apr 28, 2021
CASE NO. 20-CV-62536-RAR (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2021)

Opinion

CASE NO. 20-CV-62536-RAR

04-28-2021

COMMODITY FORWARDERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. BURBANO CORPORATION, and LUIS BURBANO, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement and for Entry of Judgment [ECF No. 13] ("Motion"). The Motion was referred to the Honorable Jared M. Strauss, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). See [ECF No. 14]. The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Strauss's Report [ECF No. 17], as well as the entire record. As of the date of this Order, no party has filed any objection to the Report, and the time to do so pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b) has elapsed.

When a magistrate judge's "disposition" has properly been 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 no party has filed an objection 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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) the Report [ECF No. 17] is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED; (2) the Motion [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED; and (3) a Final Judgment will be entered by separate Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of April, 2021.

/s/ _________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Commodity Forwarders, Inc. v. Burbano Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Apr 28, 2021
CASE NO. 20-CV-62536-RAR (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Commodity Forwarders, Inc. v. Burbano Corp.

Case Details

Full title:COMMODITY FORWARDERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. BURBANO CORPORATION, and LUIS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Date published: Apr 28, 2021

Citations

CASE NO. 20-CV-62536-RAR (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2021)

Citing Cases

Morales v. Lucilas Cake's Bird Rd. Store, LLC

Although the Court is authorized to grant the instant Motion by default, the Undersigned deems it more…