COUTURE
v.
NOSHIRVAN
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 Middle District of Florida reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and denied defendant Danesh Noshirvan's motion for attorney's fees and costs. The court found no plain error in the magistrate judge's recommendation and adopted it in full.
The district court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full and denied defendant's Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees and Costs.
“a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part," a magistrate judge's R & R”
Establishes the district court's authority to review and rule on a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Danesh Noshirvan filed a Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees and Costs. A magistrate judge, Judge Kyle C. Dudek, issued a Report and R…
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 Entitlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and Recommendation (“R & R"). (Doc. 155). Judge Dudek recommends that the Court deny Defendant Danesh Noshirvan's Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. 118). Defendant has not objected to the R & R, and the time to do so has expired. The R & R 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 R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R & R 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. So, it accepts and adopts the R & R in full. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Judge Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 155) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Defendant's Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. 118) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 8, 2024.
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)