UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-62311-RAR/STRAUSS

SEACOAST NATIONAL BANK, a 

National Banking Association , 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

M/Y VIAGGIO (HIN TW-VIS7375H809, 

United States Flag Private Yacht, 

Official # 1258515), in rem, et al.,

 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________________/ 

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND CUSTODIA LEGIS EXPENSES

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

Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 58] (“Report”), on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion 

for Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs, [ECF No. 51] (“Motion”), filed on June 30, 2023. The 

Report recommends awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees against Defendants in the amount of 

$35,820. See Report at 9. The Report also recommends awarding Plaintiff taxable costs against 

Defendants in the amount of $4,279.82. Id. at 9–13. Lastly, the Report recommends awarding 

custodia legis expenses in the amount of $84,200. Id. at 13–14. Thus, the Report recommends 

a total award of $124,299.82. Id. at 14. 

The deadline for a response to the Motion was July 14, 2023. Report at 1. To date, no 

response has been filed. The Report was submitted on October 2, 2023, and objections were due 

by October 16, 2023. Report at 14. To date, no objections have been filed. 

Case 0:22-cv-62311-RAR Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2023 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

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

review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, 

however, “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 note to 1983 

addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the 

Supreme Court has 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.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). 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)).

Because the Motion is unopposed and no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court 

considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Finding none after having carefully 

reviewed Plaintiff’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. 58], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs, [ECF No. 51], is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

3. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $35,820 in attorneys’ fees; $4,279.82 in taxable costs; and 

$84,200 in custodia legis expenses, for a total award of $124,299.82.

Case 0:22-cv-62311-RAR Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2023 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 18th day of October, 2023.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:22-cv-62311-RAR Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2023 Page 3 of 3