UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cv-61814-ALTMAN/Reinhart

YACHT MANAGEMENT

SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEIGH SMALL, et al.,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Plaintiff—Yacht Management South Florida, Inc. (“Yacht Management”)—has filed a 

Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts I–III of the Defendant’s Counterclaim (the “Motion for 

Summary Judgment”) [ECF No. 25]. On June 17, 2024, Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart issued a 

report and recommendation, in which he recommended that “Yacht Management’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment be GRANTED as to Counterclaim II and DENIED as to Counterclaims I and 

III.” Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) [ECF No 38] at 20. Magistrate Judge Reinhart also 

issued the following warning:

A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and 

Recommendation with the Honorable Roy K. Altman, United States District Court 

Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being 

served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file 

objections 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 

(2016).

Ibid. More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected. See generally Docket.

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 

Case 0:22-cv-61814-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2024 Page 1 of 2
2

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, 

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—and finding no clear error on 

the face of the R&R—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 38] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED

in full.

2. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts I–III of the Defendant’s 

Counterclaim [ECF No. 25] is GRANTED as to Counterclaim II and DENIED as 

to Counterclaims I and III.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 2, 2024.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-61814-RKA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2024 Page 2 of 2