UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 19-62751-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

DAVID GREENWALD,

Plaintiff, v.

FROST-ARNETT Company, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER After—long after—the conclusion of this short-lived litigation, the Plaintiff reemerged from the ether to request attorney’s fees. See Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 24]. The Court referred the Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt [ECF No. 2]. On February 22, 2021, Judge Hunt issued a Report & Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 34], in which he suggested that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part—and that the Plaintiff be awarded $3,322.50 in fees. See Report at 9. No party filed objections to the Report—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,

(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 Neséles v. Wainwright, 0T7 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)). This Court has carefully reviewed the Report and can find no clear error in it. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the Report [ECF No. 34] is ADOPTED in FULL. The Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED in PART. The Plaintiff shall be awarded $3,322.50 in attorney’s fees, for which sum execution shall now issue. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Cr of March 2021.

ROY K. ALTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record