UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-CV-62575-RAR

UNITED STATES SURETY COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS CORP., et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 36] (“Report”), filed on December 15, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, [ECF No. 29] (“Motion”). See Report at 1. The Report properly notified Defendant of its right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. Id. at 3–4. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, a district court must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “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 note to 1983 addition (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.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). 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)). 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 1s hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 36], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 29], is GRANTED. 3. The Court will enter Final Judgment for Plaintiff by separate order. 4. Plaintiff shall file documentation substantiating the fees it incurred regarding the Motion no later than February 24, 2023. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 17th day of February, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2