UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61423-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

JAMES VERSFELT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANZA FOOD SERVICE, LLC, 

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER

The Defendant filed a Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 66] (the “Motion”). The Court 

referred that Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. See Order of Referral [ECF 

No. 69]. Magistrate Judge Hunt issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 76] (the “R&R”), in 

which he determined that the Motion should be granted in part. Magistrate Judge Hunt also warned 

the parties 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).

Id. at 7–8. More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected. 

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 (citation omitted). Although 

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

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

Case 0:20-cv-61423-RKA Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

when no 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, we find no clear error on the 

face of the R&R. Accordingly, we hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE as follows: 

1. The R&R [ECF No. 76] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

2. The Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 66] is GRANTED IN PART.

3. The Defendant shall recover taxable costs of $5,262.25 (including $400 for the filing 

fee, $369 for service of subpoenas, and $4,493.25 forcourt reporters and deposition 

and hearing transcripts).

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 5th day of July 2022.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61423-RKA Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2022 Page 2 of 2