UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:21-cv-23155-KMM

TROY CLOWDUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant. /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon United State Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 158). On June 8, 2023 Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings to Enforce Cost Judgment and to Approve Supersedeas Bond. (“Motion”) (ECF No. 156). Thereafter, this Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Louis to “take all necessary and proper action as required by law” with respect to the Motion. (ECF No. 157). Magistrate Judge Louis issued the R&R, recommending that the Motion be GRANTED. See R&R at 1. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review.

Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel,

(M.D. Fla. 2000))). In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion. R&R at 2. Namely, Magistrate Judge Louis states that “because the Supersedeas Bond complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) and Local Rules 62.1 and 7.1, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Supersedeas Bond is authorized and appropriate.”

The Court agrees. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 158) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings to Enforce Cost Judgment and to Approve Supersedeas Bond (ECF No. 156) is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Supersedeas Bond, in the amount of $7,293.83, approved and executed by NGM Insurance Company as Plaintiff’s surety, is APPROVED; and 4. The execution of the entry of award of costs, see (ECF No. 155), is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th _ day of July 2023.

MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record