SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA

CASE NO. 21-CV-82143-RAR

ANTHONY LUCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVNV FUNDING LLC,

Defendant. _______________________________/

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. 50] (“Report”), filed on January 18, 2023. The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 27]. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified Plaintiff of his right to object to Magistrate Judge Maynard’s findings. Id. at 12. 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, 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. The Court notes that Magistrate Judge Maynard complied with the correct standard for adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(1) factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction at the motion to dismiss stage. See Lawrence v. Dunbar,

(11th Cir. 1990). After affording the parties an evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge Maynard “independently weighed facts” presented by the parties “without reference to the merits of the underlying claim,” and determined that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this dispute. See Morrison v. Amway Corp.,

(11th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the Court—agreeing with Magistrate Judge Maynard’s well-reasoned analysis—holds that it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 50], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs Motion, [ECF No. 27], is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2