FOX
v.
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC
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 court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.
Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial, finding a local ordinance preempted by state law and t…
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 Per Se Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Melissa Damian, U.S. Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 135], regarding Plaintiff Michael Fox’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 92]. In her Report, Judge Damian recommends that the Motion be denied on the basis that Miami-Dade County Code Section 8A- 110.1(3) is preempted by Florida law, and therefore is not a valid predicate for per se violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. When a magistrate judge’s disposition has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, as here, “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 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 Case No. 17-24284-Civ-COOKE/Damian
(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.” (alteration added)). The Court has reviewed the Motion, the briefing and accompanying exhibits, Judge Damian’s Report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. There is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judge Damian’s Report [ECF No. 135] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and the Motion [ECF No. 92] is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 2022.
KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
for Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Judge
ce: Melissa Damian, U.S. Magistrate Judge counsel of record