# Brown v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE

> District Court, S.D. Florida · March 29, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10118921

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** March 29, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10118921

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CIV-60700-RAR
ETHALBERT K. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M.
Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 44] (“Report”), entered on March 12, 2021.
The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendant City of Fort Lauderdale’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 37] (“Motion”). See Report at 1. Specifically, Magistrate Judge
Strauss recommends granting Defendant’s Motion because Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. See id. at 7-11.
The Report properly notified Plaintiff of his right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s
conclusions, as well as the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 12. The time for objections
has passed, and Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report.
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). 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 “[fJailure 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 (Sth Cir. 1982)).
Because Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de
novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for
clear error. Finding none, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 44] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 37] is GRANTED.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, final judgment will be
entered by separate order.
3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and any pending motions are DENIED
AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: Pro Se Plaintiff
Counsel of record
Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss

Page 2 of 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10118921. Public record. Not legal advice.