North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. v. Hammad Enterprises Inc.
North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. v. Hammad Enterprises Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-60200-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt
NORTH ATLANTIC OPERATING COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
HAMMAD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 267], filed on May 8, 2020. This Court referred the Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt [ECF No. 271]. On September 22, 2020, Judge Hunt issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 274], in which he suggested that the Motion be denied. See R&R at 8. No party filed objections to the R&R—and the time for doing so has passed. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been 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 a de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and 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.”’). 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(Sth Cir. 1982)). This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and can find no clear error in it. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the R&R [ECF No. 274] is ADOPTED IN FULL. The Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Oe 2020.
ROYK.ALTMAN ———w UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record
Reference
- Status
- Unknown