UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61648-RAR

BRENDA HERNANDEZ, and 

LUIS LUQUE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM’S EAST, INC.,

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

AMENDED ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. 

Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 80] (“Report”), filed on September 5, 2021. 

The Report recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Tax Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 68] 

be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. See Report at 1. The Report properly 

notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings and the 

consequences for failing to object. Id. at 7.

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 

1 This Order is identical in all respects to the prior Order Affirming Report and Recommendation [ECF 

No. 83] apart from a scrivener’s error which was corrected on Page 2. See Notice of Scrivener’s Error 

[ECF No. 85].

Case 0:20-cv-61648-RAR Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2021 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

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.”). 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)). 

To date, no objections have been received. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to 

review the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed Defendant’s Motion, the Report, the 

factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [ECF No. 80] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. The Motion [ECF No. 68] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Defendant is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $14,326.00 and non-taxable costs in the 

amount of $1,745.00, for a total award of $16,071.00.

3. The prior Order Affirming Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 83] is

VACATED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 26th day of October, 2021.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Counsel of record

Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss

Case 0:20-cv-61648-RAR Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2021 Page 2 of 2