Doherty v. Borrows, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 23-cv-14395-ALTMAN/Reinhart
KEITH ROBERT DOHERTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK BORROW, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 29, 2026, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart issued a Report and Recommendation
(the “Report”) [ECF No. 196], suggesting that we grant in part and deny in part the Defendants’
Motion for an award of costs.
Under Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being
served with a copy of a Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections with the
relevant United States District Judge. See also F ED . R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3). Here, the fourteen-day deadline
for filing objections has passed, and neither party has objected to the Report. See generally Docket.
When a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation has been properly objected to, district courts
must review that disposition de novo. See F ED . 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.” F ED . 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
Case 2:23-cv-14395-RKA Document 199 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2026 Page 1 of 2

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).
Having reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error
on the face of the Report—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 196] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
in full.
2. 	The Remaining Defendants shall recover a total of $3,150.45 in taxable costs.
3. 	The case shall remain CLOSED. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending
motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 19, 2026.
_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 2:23-cv-14395-RKA Document 199 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2026 Page 2 of 2