CCP Heron Landing, LLC v. O'Neill et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CV-61668-DAMIAN
CCP HERON LANDING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH O’NEILL, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 7]
AND REMANDING CASE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by
United States Magistrate Judge Jared Strauss on September 4, 2025. [ECF No. 7 (“Report”].
Pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11, upon removal from the Circuit Court of
Broward County, this matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Strauss. [ECF Nos. 1, 2]. After
review of the Complaint and Notice of Removal, Judge Strauss issued an Order to Show
Cause, directing the Defendants to show cause why this action should not be remanded to
state court. [ECF No. 5]. After Defendants failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause,
Judge Strauss issued the Report in which he recommends the case be remanded to state court
because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in the lawsuit. See Report.
Neither party asserted 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, 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
Case 0:25-cv-61668-MD Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2025 Page 1 of 2

2
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 (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)).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to assure
herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. Based on that review, the
undersigned agrees with Judge Strauss’s well-reasoned analysis and recommendations, as
stated above. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 7]
is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;
It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the instant action is REMANDED to the the
County Court in and for Broward County, Florida.
The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case, and any pending motions, are DENIED AS
MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 30th day of
November, 2025.
___________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 0:25-cv-61668-MD Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2025 Page 2 of 2