UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-62380-RAR/STRAUSS

GARY JOHN FRANCIONE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANTONIO’S RISTORANTE LLC, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 55] (“Report”), on Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs, [ECF No. 52] (“Cost Motion”), and Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to

(b), [ECF No. 53] (“Fee Motion”), both of which were filed on August 28, 2023. The Report recommends awarding Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees in the amount of $19,400 and awarding Plaintiffs their costs in the amount of $727, for a total award in the amount of $20,127. Report at 12–13. Defendants failed to respond to the Cost Motion and Fee Motion—and have not filed any objections to the Report. Report at 1. 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 the Motions are unopposed, and no objections have been filed, the Court considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Finding none after having carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motions, 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. 55], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Cost Motion, [ECF No. 52], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are awarded $727 in costs. 3. Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion, [ECF No. 53], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are awarded $19,400 in attorneys’ fees. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 19th day of October, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2