Global Approach, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-cv-22531-ALTMAN/Hernandez
GLOBAL APPROACH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 1, 2026, we granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 50].
See Order Granting Summary Judgment [ECF No. 48]; see also Final Judgment [ECF No. 49]. On July
27, 2026, the Defendant moved for Attorney Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 54]. On September 29,
2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”)
[ECF No. 58], suggesting that we grant in part and deny in part the Motion.
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 FED . R. C IV . 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 FED . R. C IV . 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.” 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)
Case 1:24-cv-22531-RKA Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2026 Page 1 of 2

(“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).
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. 58] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
in full.
2. 	The Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 54] is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part.
a. 	We enter attorneys’ fees in favor of the Defendant for $33,899.80.
3. 	This case shall remain CLOSED. All deadlines are TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on October 14, 2026.
_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 1:24-cv-22531-RKA Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2026 Page 2 of 2