SCHALAMAR CREEK MOBILE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
ADLER
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 report and recommendation, granting defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs objected to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that granted defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs. The magistrate ju…
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
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 11, 2022. (Doc. 187). Judge Porcelli recommends that Defendants’ “Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” (Doc. 185) be granted to the extent that Defendants are awarded $356,888.48 in attorney’s fees and $9,365.20 in costs. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an objection. (Doc. 202). 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 recommendations. 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) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli’s well-reasoned factual findings and conclusions, and the objections do not provide a basis for overruling the report and recommendation. Consequently, Consequently, Defendants’ motions for sanctions are denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation (Doc. 187) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
(2) Defendants’ “Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Doc. 185) is granted to the extent that Defendants are awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $356,888.48 and costs in the amount of $9,365.20. (3) The Clerk is directed to prepare an amended judgment that includes the award of attorney’s fees and costs, as set forth herein. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 26th day of September, 2022.
A ee f / ‘| v fe, 4. a / bill / OQ) -%
TOM BARBER
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)