SERENDIPITY AT SEA, LLC
v.
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBER 187581
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.
In this insurance coverage dispute, Serendipity at Sea, LLC brought suit against Underwriters at Lloyd's of London regarding Policy Number 187581. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation and awarded defendant $51,196 in attorney's fees and non-taxable costs after plaintiff failed to timely object.
The court affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting defendant's motion for attorney's fees and non-taxable costs in the total amount of $51,196 ($50,000 in attorney's fees and $1,196 in non-taxable costs). The court applied a clear error standard of review rather than de novo review because no party timely objected to the report.
[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 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSerendipity at Sea, LLC initiated a civil action against Underwriters at Lloyd's of London subscribing to an insurance policy. Defendant filed a motio…
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 Non-Taxable Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 278], on Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (“Motion”), [ECF No. 268], filed on November 30, 2023. The Report recommends awarding Defendant $51,196, representing $50,000 in attorney's fees and $1,196 in non-taxable costs. See Report at 1. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, [ECF No. 274], to the Motion on December 21, 2023, and Defendant filed a Reply in Support, [ECF No. 277], on January 2, 2024. The Report was entered on February 26, 2024, and objections were due by March 11, 2024. See Report at 5. 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, 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.") (cleaned up). 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 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 Defendant'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. 278], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Non-Taxable Costs, [ECF No. 268], is
GRANTED.
3. Defendant is hereby awarded $50,000 in attorney's fees and $1,196 in non-taxable costs for a total award of $51,196.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 12th day of March, 2024.
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736 (11th Cir. 1988)