OCEAN REEF CHARTERS, LLC
v.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ocean Reef Charters, LLC brought a lawsuit against Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. The district court affirmed a magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Travelers' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's punitive damages claim.
The district court granted Travelers' motion to dismiss and dismissed Ocean Reef's claim for punitive damages. The court affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation without modification.
[1] A district court need only review a magistrate judge's report for clear error when no party timely objects to the report.
[2] Failure to object to a magistrate judge's factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on those findings.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOcean Reef Charters filed suit against Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. Travelers moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for punitive d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Reinhart's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 65], entered on February 26, 2024. The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America's ("Travelers") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages (“Motion”), [ECF No. 53]. See generally Report. The Report properly notified the parties of the right to object to Magistrate Judge Reinhart's findings. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff Ocean Reef Charters, LLC (“Ocean Reef") filed a Notice of No Objections to the Report, [ECF No. 66], on February 27, 2024. Defendant Travelers filed a Notice of No Objections to the Report, [ECF No. 67], on March 4, 2024. Both parties have thus indicated that they do not intend to object to the Report.
When a magistrate judge's "disposition” has been properly objected to, a district court 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, 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.” (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, 855 F. 2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court need only review the Report for clear error. Having done so and finding no error—as well as agreeing with the Report's analysis—it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report, [ECF No. 65], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages, [ECF No. 53], is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is DISMISSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 5th day of March, 2024.
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736 (11th Cir. 1988)