MARINE TOWING & SALVAGE OF S.W. FL., INC.
v.
ONE 66' 2019 SABRE DIRIGO
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 grant in part and deny in part the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs.
Defendants filed a supplemental motion for attorney's fees and costs, to which the plaintiff responded. The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recom…
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. 110), Plaintiffs Response (Doc. 114), and United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 116). Judge Dudek recommends that Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part. 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 a specific objection, there is no requirement that a district judge review a 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 Report and Recommendation in full.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. Judge Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 116) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. 110) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. The Court awards $234,648.05 in attorney's fees;
b. The Court awards $30,679.53 in costs; and
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 24, 2025.
SherPolster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)