UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-62311-RAR/STRAUSS

SEACOAST NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking Association ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M/Y VIAGGIO (HIN TW-VIS7375H809, United States Flag Private Yacht, Official # 1258515), in rem, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND CUSTODIA LEGIS EXPENSES

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 58] (“Report”), on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs, [ECF No. 51] (“Motion”), filed on June 30, 2023. The Report recommends awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees against Defendants in the amount of $35,820. See Report at 9. The Report also recommends awarding Plaintiff taxable costs against Defendants in the amount of $4,279.82. Id. at 9–13. Lastly, the Report recommends awarding custodia legis expenses in the amount of $84,200. Id. at 13–14. Thus, the Report recommends a total award of $124,299.82. Id. at 14. The deadline for a response to the Motion was July 14, 2023. Report at 1. To date, no response has been filed. The Report was submitted on October 2, 2023, and objections were due by October 16, 2023. Report at 14. To date, no objections have been filed. 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 “[f]ailure 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,

(5th Cir. 1982)). Because the Motion is unopposed and no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court

considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Finding none after having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, the Report, the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 58], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs, [ECF No. 51], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $35,820 in attorneys’ fees; $4,279.82 in taxable costs; and $84,200 in custodia legis expenses, for a total award of $124,299.82. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 18th day of October, 2023.

CO oT A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3