ROSADO

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 62; Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 9, 2022. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that Defendant’s Unopposed Application for Taxation of Costs (Dkt. No. 60; Motion) be granted, costs be taxed in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,216.70, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly. See Report at 3. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also 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.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become

11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”).

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record