SYDNEY MARIE KEEFE
v.
BRITT’S BOW WOW BOUTIQUE, INC., AND MERRI COLVARD
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.
In this post-judgment fee award proceeding, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting plaintiff's motion for supplemental costs in full ($383.15) and granting in part plaintiff's motion for supplemental attorney's fees ($43,012.50).
The Court granted plaintiff's motion for supplemental costs in the amount of $383.15 and granted in part plaintiff's motion for supplemental attorney's fees in the amount of $43,012.50.
[1] A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and approved when no timely objections are filed.
[2] A court may award supplemental costs to a plaintiff.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 184] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the standard for adoption of magistrate judge recommendations when no objections are timely filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Sydney Marie Keefe, sought supplemental costs and attorney's fees following a judgment in a dispute against Britt's Bow Wow Boutique, I…
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 Report And Recommendation Adoption cases and more on FLexlaw
MAGISTRATE JUDGE; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL COSTS GRANTING IN PART SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch (the “Report”) [DE 184], issued on November 17, 2025, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Supplemental Costs and Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Supplemental Attorney’s Fees [DE’s 177, 181]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 184] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 184] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 184] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 184] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Costs [DE 177] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $383.15 in costs. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorney’s Fees [DE 181] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $43,012.50 in attorney’s fees. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, on this 2nd day of December, 2025. Df cbf. 4 ii As j if fas ae? A
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)