Opinion
21-CV-61565-RAR
04-05-2022
LAND TRUST SERVICE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO A. RUIZ, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 60] (“Report”), filed on March 21, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court REMAND the case based on a finding that Plaintiffs lack standing and DENY Veripro, MERS, and BANA'S Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint [ECF No. 55] (“Joint Motion to Dismiss”) as MOOT. See Report at 1-2. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report.
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). However, 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 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.”). 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 did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 60] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 55] is DENIED as MOOT.
3. The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
5. Any pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Jared M. Strauss, Magistrate Judge