Illoominate Media, Inc. et al v. Cair Florida, Inc. et al

Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-CV-81179-RAR
ILLOOMINATE MEDIA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAIR FLORIDA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart’s Report
and Recommendation on Motion for Contempt and to Enforce Settlement Agreement (“Motion”),
[ECF No. 199] (“Report”), filed on March 16, 2026. The Report recommends that the Court deny
Defendants’ Motion for Contempt and to Enforce Settlement Agreement, [ECF No. 175]. 	The
time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must
review the disposition de novo. 	FED. R. C IV. 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. C IV. 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
Case 9:19-cv-81179-RAR Document 200 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2026 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2
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)).
Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review.
Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report, [ECF No. 199], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. 	Defendants’ Motion, [ECF No. 175], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 1st day of April, 2026.
_________________________________
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 9:19-cv-81179-RAR Document 200 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2026 Page 2 of 2