Opinion
21-CV-62537-RAR
09-12-2022
JANNA KARPOVTSEVA, Plaintiff, v. AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 62] of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 55]. See Report at 1, 4. Specifically, the Report recommends that Defendants be awarded taxable costs in the amount of $579.24. 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. 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). The Supreme Court further stated nothing in the legislative history “demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give any more consideration to the magistrate's report than the court considers appropriate.” Id. at 150.
To date, no objections have been received. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Finding none after carefully reviewing the 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. 62] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Defendant shall be awarded taxable costs in the amount of $579.24.
DONE AND ORDERED.