UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-80008-RAR

DAVID YEAGER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HUNTERS RUN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., d/b/a Hunters Run Country Club,

Defendant. __________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34] (“Report”), filed on July 1, 2022. The Report recommends the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3]. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report. 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,

(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 “[fJailure 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)). Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 34] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 3] is GRANTED. _ Plaintiffs’ Complaint, [ECF No. 1-A] is DISMISSED, without prejudice. 3. Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint on or before July 25, 2022. Failure to file an Amended Complaint, or to remedy the standing and pleading issues pointed out in the Report, will result in dismissal with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 17th day of July, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2