recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”
How later courts described this case
- recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ARCHIE BUTCHER,
Claimant,
v. Case No. 3:23-cv-110-MMH-SJH
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INT’L
INC. and INSURANCE CO. OF
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
c/o AIG CLAIMS, INC.,
Employer/Carrier,
and
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
Party-In-Interest.
O R D E R
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 28; Report), entered by the Honorable Samuel J. Horovitz, United
States Magistrate Judge, on January 7, 2025. In the Report, Judge Horovitz
recommends that the Court affirm the Benefits Review Board’s decisions
upholding the ALJ’s decision and direct the Clerk of the Court to enter
judgment and close the file. See Report at 21. No objections to the Report have
been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court
“must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that
has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews
those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was
filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.;
see also 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.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become
11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant
amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or
not.”).
1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting
and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 22.
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and
factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. The decisions of the Benefits Review Board upholding the □□□□□□
decision are AFFIRMED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment affirming the
Benefits Review Board’s decisions, terminate all pending motions and
deadlines as moot, and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 3rd day of
February, 2025.
United States District Judge
ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
-3-