Opinion
22-CV-60573-RAR
12-04-2023
GULF BUILDING LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO Al. 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. 155] (“Report”), filed on November 2, 2023. The Report recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Bill of Costs, [ECF No. 148], (“Motion”) be granted in part and that the Court award Plaintiff costs in the amount of $13,050.82 against Defendant. See Report at 16. 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. 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. 155], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 148], is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded taxable costs in the amount of $13,050.82 against Defendant.
DONE AND ORDERED.