UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61084-CIV-ALTMAN/Reid

DEREK S. SINCLAIR,

Petitioner, vs.

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent. _________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) [ECF No. 1]. On August 24, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 6], in which she recommended that this Court deny the Petition. See Report at 7. In that Report, Magistrate Judge Reid warned the Petitioner: Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen (14) days of receipt of a copy of the Report. Failure to file timely objections shall bar petitioner from a de novo determination by the District 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 Judge except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Id. The Petitioner filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed. 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 “[flailure 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,

(Sth Cir. 1982)). The Court has reviewed the Report, the Petition, the record, and the applicable law and can find no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as follows: 1. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 2. 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, LC 2020.

ROYK.ALTMAN ————~— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record Derek S. Sinclair, pro se