Opinion
15-CIV-24753-COOKE/Damian
07-13-2022
SEDNA AIRE USA INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNOLOGI, INC.; et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARCIA G. COOKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Melissa Damian, U.S. Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 144], regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 135], Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 137], Individual Defendants Edward Sweat and Mark Crabtree's Joint Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement . . . [ECF No. 138], and Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 140].
In her Report, Judge Damian recommends that: 1) Plaintiffs' Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF Nos. 135 and 140] be denied with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2) Individual Defendants Edward Sweat and Mark Crabtree's Joint Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 138] be denied with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 137] be denied as moot. The parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed.
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). When no party has timely objected, as here, “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.” (alteration added)).
The Court has reviewed the Motions, the related briefing and accompanying exhibits, Judge Damian's Report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. There is no clear error on the face of the record except that the denial of the Motions should be without prejudice. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 840 Fed.Appx. 419, 421 (11th Cir. 2020) (“The district court, did, however, err in one regard. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be entered without prejudice.” (alteration added; citation omitted)). Indeed, the Magistrate Judge recognizes the parties may seek relief in state court. (See Report 9). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judge Damian's Report [ECF No. 144] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED as follows: Plaintiffs' Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment [ECF Nos. 135 and 140] are DENIED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the Individual Defendants Edward Sweat and Mark Crabtree's Joint Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 138] is DENIED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 137] is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED.
Melissa Damian, U.S. Magistrate Judge