UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-60890-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

RELIABILL SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILESTONE DETOX, LLC, 

Defendant.

/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

The Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion for Damages and Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the 

“Motion”) [ECF No. 21], which we referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. On August 25, 

2021, Judge Hunt issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 25], in which he 

recommended that the Motion be granted in part and that the Plaintiff be awarded $33,199.67 for 

amounts owed, a liquidated and termination fee of $57,233.16, late fees of $2,394.73, attorney’s fees 

of $17,922.35, and costs of $544.79 for a total award of $111,294.70, see id. 9–10. Judge Hunt also 

warned as follows:

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above

findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure 

to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based 

on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and 

Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

R&R at 10. As of this writing, no party has filed objections to the R&R, and the deadline to do so has 

passed. See generally Docket.

Case 0:20-cv-60890-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2021 Page 1 of 3
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been 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 (citation omitted). Although Rule 

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

was to require a de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and 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)).

This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and can find no clear error in it. The R&R properly 

calculates the amounts owed and the liquidated damages, properly computes litigation costs, and 

properly compensates the Plaintiff’s counsel, at a reasonable rate, for work done on this case. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:

1. The R&R [ECF No. 25] is ADOPTED in full. 

2. The Supplemental Motion for Damages and Attorney’s Fees and Costs [ECF No. 21] 

is GRANTED in part. The Plaintiff shall be awarded $33,199.67 for amounts owed, 

a liquidated and termination fee of $57,233.16, late fees of $2,394.73, attorney’s fees 

of $17,922.35, and costs of $544.79 for a total award of $111,294.70, for which sum 

execution shall now issue.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 9th day of September 2021.

Case 0:20-cv-60890-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2021 Page 2 of 3
 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-60890-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2021 Page 3 of 3