Keith Robert Doherty v. Mark Borrow, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 23-cv-14395-ALTMAN/Reinhart KEITH ROBERT DOHERTY, Plaintiff, v. MARK BORROW, et al., Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On April 29, 2026, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 196], suggesting that we grant in part and deny in part the Defendants’ Motion for an award of costs.

Under Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of a Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections with the relevant United States District Judge. See also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Here, the fourteen-day deadline for filing objections has passed, and neither party has objected to the Report. See generally Docket.

When a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “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 notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress’s intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, when no party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (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.”). In any event, the “[flailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewzs v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988).

Having reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error on the face of the Report—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 196] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

2. ‘The Remaining Defendants shall recover a total of $3,150.45 in taxable costs.

3. The case shall remain CLOSED. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions ate DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District aC.

ROYKALIMAN.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record