Opinion
20-cv-80021-CIV-ALTMAN/Reinhart
04-05-2022
KIMBERLY RIFE, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ROY K. ALTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The parties filed a Motion to File with Redactions [ECF No. 127], setting out their positions on redacting the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The Court referred that Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 135] (the “R&R”), in which he determined that the second amended complaint should be filed unredacted. Magistrate Judge Reinhart also warned the parties:
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable Roy K. Altman, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections shall constitute a waiver of a party's “right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).
See R&R at 12. That deadline has long passed, and neither side has objected.
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But, 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 that Congress's intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed-and not, as here, when no 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.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]'s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, we find no clear error on the face of the R&R. Accordingly, we hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE as follows:
1. The R&R [ECF No. 135] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
2. The Motion to File with Redactions [ECF No. 127] is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 122].
DONE AND ORDERED.