SHEETS
v.
JIMENEZ
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.
A district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied defendants' motion for attorney's fees in this civil case. The court found no plain error in the magistrate judge's analysis and rejected the defendants' entitlement to fees.
Defendants are not entitled to attorney's fees. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation denying the motion in full.
[1] A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] In the absence of specific objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district judge is not required to review the report de novo.
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“a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part," a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is a civil case (No. 2:24-cv-704) involving plaintiff Sheets and defendants Kelvin Jimenez, Dylan J. Renz, and the City of Punta Gorda. Defendant…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 61). Judge Dudek recommends denying the motion. No party objected, so the matter is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part," a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the report and recommendation de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don't object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded
by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150–52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain"; (3) “it affected substantial rights"; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings." Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. It accepts and adopts the R&R in full.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. Judge Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Defendants' Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney's Fees (Doc. 54) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 21, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)