MILLER

v.

THE CITY OF FORT MYERS

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 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. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). There are no factual objections. Plaintiffs disagree with the R&R’s legal conclusions. The Court, however, does not. After careful, de novo review of the file and applicable law, the Court agrees with the R&R’s analysis in full. To avoid simply restating Judge Mizell’s well-put reasoning or block quoting ten-plus pages, the Court concludes it is sufficient to let the R&R stand on its own. So the Court accepts, adopts, and incorporates the R&R’s legal conclusions by reference here. Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled. Defendants’ alternative objections are denied as moot. And the Motion is denied for the reasons explained in the R&R. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 137) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. (2) Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. 138) are OVERRULED. (3) Defendants’ alternative objections (Doc. 139) are OVERRULED as moot. (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Costs of Litigation Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e) (Doc. 130) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 29th day of September, 2020.