OMNIPOL, A.S.
v.
MULTINATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICES, LCC
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 the defendant's motion for attorney's fees.
A magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the defendant be awarded $9,870.00 for reasonable appellate attorney's fees. No objections were f…
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 Reasonableness Of Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 167), filed on December 19, 2022, recommending that Defendant Christopher Worrell’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 165) should be granted to the extent that he be awarded $9,870.00 for his reasonable appellate attorney’s fees. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants the Motion to the extent Mr. Worrell is awarded $9.870.00 in reasonable appellate attorney’s fees. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 167) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.
(2) Defendant Christopher Worrell’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 165) is GRANTED to the extent that he is awarded $9,870.00 for his reasonable appellate attorney’s fees. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 9th day of January, 2023. lagi fh. Muswshy (noiZh VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ'’COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)