UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NOS. 20-21959-CIV-ALTMAN

 

LAZARUS ADSIDE, 

Petitioner, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent.

_________________________________/ 

ORDER

Our Petitioner, Lazarus Adside, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 

2254, challenging his state-court conviction for aggravated battery. See Amended Petition [ECF No. 

15]. We referred the Amended Petition to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid, see Order Referring Case 

[ECF No. 25], whose Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 26] suggested that we 

dismiss the Amended Petition as moot because the Petitioner has been released from the custody of 

the Florida Department of Corrections. See R&R at 4 (“After filing his petition, Petitioner was, in fact, 

released on November 19, 2020, having served his sentence. Since he has been released from custody, 

his prayer for relief was satisfied leaving nothing for this Court to do.”). Magistrate Judge Reid also 

warned the parties as follows: 

Objections to this Report may be filed with the district judge within fourteen days of 

receipt of a copy of the Report. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in this Report and shall constitute a 

waiver of a party’s “right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see also Harrigan v. MetroDade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020); 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C).

Id. Objections to the R&R were due on June 8, 2022, and neither party filed an objection. 

Case 1:20-cv-21959-RKA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must 

review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But 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 (cleaned up). Although Rule 72 

itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress’ intent 

was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, 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)).

Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, the Court can find no clear 

error on the face of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as 

follows: 

1. The R&R [ECF No. 26] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

2. Adside’s Amended Petition [ECF No. 15] is DISMISSED as moot.

3. Any requests for an evidentiary hearing or a certificate of appealability are DENIED.

4. Any other pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all deadlines are 

TERMINATED.

5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

Case 1:20-cv-21959-RKA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 21st day of June 2022. 

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Lazarus Adside, pro se

counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-21959-RKA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2022 Page 3 of 3