SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA

CASE NO. 22-CV-80884-RAR

PEIXUAN WANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REVERE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 52] (“Report”), filed on February 15, 2023. The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 33]. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified Plaintiffs of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Maynard’s findings and also instructed the parties to file a Notice if they did not intend to object to the Report. Id. at 19. Both parties filed Notices indicating their lack of objections to the Report. See [ECF Nos. 53, 54]. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts 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—and agreeing with Magistrate Judge Maynard’s well-reasoned analysis—it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report, [ECF No. 52], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion, [ECF No. 33], is GRANTED as follows: 1. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. 2. Count lis DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. Count I1is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. Count II] is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5. Count IV is DISMISSED without prejudice. 6. Count V is DISMISSED with prejudice. 7. Plaintiffs are granted one final opportunity to amend their Complaint to address the deficiencies discussed in the Report on or before March 1, 2023. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of February, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2