WATKINS
v.
SHIELDS
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 adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding a motion concerning service of process fees. The court awarded defendants $130 for serving summons and subpoenas while denying the remainder of the motion.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report in full, granting the motion in part by awarding defendants $130 for serving summons and subpoenas, and otherwise denying the motion.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports and the district court's authority over them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants filed a motion regarding service costs. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion be granted in part, awarding …
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
be awarded $130 for serving summons and subpoenas and that the Motion be otherwise denied. [ECF No. 197]. No party has objected to the Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). As no objections have been filed, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Hunt’s findings and conclusion that the Motion should be granted in part.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 197], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part. The Defendants are hereby awarded $130 for serving summons and subpoenas. The Motion is otherwise DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of August, 2025.
\ | j 4 /
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)