DOHERTY
v.
BORROWS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court for the Southern District of Florida considered defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action with prejudice as a sanction for alleged discovery violations and disrespectful conduct. The court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion, finding no willful or intentional misconduct and noting that the underlying discovery dispute had been resolved.
The court denied the defendants' motion for sanctions, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The court found that the record did not demonstrate that Doherty acted willfully, intentionally, or in flagrant bad faith as required under Rule 37, and that the underlying discovery dispute had been resolved.
[1] A district court need only conduct a clear error review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when no party timely objects to the report.
[2] Failure to object to a magistrate judge's factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on those findings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the record . . . does not reflect that Mr. Doherty acted willfully, intentionally, or 'in flagrant bad faith' for purposes of Rule 37”
The magistrate judge's basis for recommending denial of the sanctions motion, establishing the required standard under Rule 37(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Keith Robert Doherty filed a civil action. Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions on October 30, 2024, seeking dismissal with prejudice und…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
On October 30, 2024, the Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions, asking us to sanction the Plaintiff, Keith Robert Doherty, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) by “dismissing this action with prejudice[.]" Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 89] at 10. The Defendants insist that “lesser sanctions will not suffice” because of Doherty's supposed “failure to properly engage in discovery and comply with this Court's Orders [and his] pattern of disrespectful and harassing behavior[.]” Id. at 13 (cleaned up). We referred the Motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R) [ECF No. 107] on December 11, 2024. In that R&R, Magistrate Judge Reinhart suggested that we deny the Motion because “the record . . . does not reflect that Mr. Doherty acted willfully, intentionally, or ‘in flagrant bad faith' for purposes of Rule 37,” and because the underlying discovery dispute had been resolved. R&R at 4 (quoting Nat'l Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 641 (1976)). On December 19, 2024, the Defendants told us “that they do not object” to the R&R. Notice [ECF No. 108] at 1.
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 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. 107] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
2. The Defendants' Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 89] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 20, 2024.
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Keith Robert Doherty, pro se counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1976)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736 (11th Cir. 1988)