Cook v. The Bank Of New York

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Cook v. The Bank Of New York

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-CV-80582-RAR

JUDITH COOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK,

Defendant. ____________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart’s Reports and Recommendations [ECF Nos. 38, 39] (the “Reports”), filed on June 7, 2021 and June 8, 2021, respectively. The Reports recommend that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motions for Remand [ECF Nos. 6, 7]. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Reports. 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). However, 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 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.”). 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)). Because there are no objections to the Reports, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Reports for clear error. Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Reports [ECF Nos. 38, 39] are each AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motions for Remand [ECF Nos. 6, 7] are each DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 23rd day of June, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart

Page 2 of 2

Reference

Status
Unknown