UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 19-60316-CIV-ALTMAN/Reid

HARRY S. MCCRAY,

Petitioner, v.

STATE ATTORNEY,

Respondent. _________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] (the “R&R”), in which she suggests that the Court dismiss the Petition [ECF No. 1] (the “Petition” or “Pet.”) for lack of jurisdiction. See R&R at 1. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Reid warned the Petitioner: Objections to this [R]eport may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen days of receipt of a copy of the [R]eport. Failure to file timely objections shall bar Movant from a de novo determination by the District Court Judge of an issue covered in this report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Court Judge except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Id. at 7. Despite this warning, the Petitioner has failed to timely object to Magistrate Judge Reid’s R&R. 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’ intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn,

(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,

(11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright,

(5th Cir. 1982)). The undersigned has reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, and can find no clear error on the face of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows: 1. The R&R [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. 2. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case, all pending hearings and deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 31st day of August 2020.

ROY K. i UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Harry McCray 991450 Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) 13619 SE Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266 PRO SE Matthew Steven Ocksrider Office of the Attorney General Criminal Appeals 1515 North Flagler Drive (Suite 900) West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 837-5000 Email: matthew.ocksrider @ myfloridalegal.com Noticing 2254 SAG Broward and North Email: CrimAppWPB @ MyFloridaLegal.com