“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.”
How later courts described this case
- “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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-CIV-81534-RAR
LEONARD B. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMENDATION
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Bruce E.
Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 64], entered on March 25, 2021.
The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 43]. See Report at 2. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to
Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 45. The
time for objections has passed and neither party filed any 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.”).
Because no party has filed an objection to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo
review of Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear
error. Finding none, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) The Report [ECF No. 64] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 43] is GRANTED. A
judgment shall be entered in accordance with the foregoing by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, this 12th day of April, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: Counsel of record
Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart
Page 2 of 2