CHAVARRIA
v.
MIAMI MANAGEMENT, INC.
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 on post-judgment motions for taxation of costs and attorney's fees in Chavarria v. Miami Management, Inc. The court granted the motion for costs in full ($263) and granted in part the motion for attorney's fees ($4,320), with no party objections filed.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the Motion for Taxation of Costs for $263 and granting in part and denying in part the Motion for Taxation of Attorney's Fees for $4,320.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for parties to challenge magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Chavarria prevailed in litigation against Defendants Miami Management, Inc. and sought post-judgment recovery of costs and attorney's fees t…
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 Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin- Birch's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Taxation of Costs and Motion for Taxation of Attorney's Fees [ECF Nos. 55, 56]. [ECF No. 58 (the “R&R”)]. Judge Augustin-Birch recommends granting the Motion for Taxation of Costs [ECF No. 55] and granting in part and denying in part the Motion for Taxation of Attorney's Fees [ECF No. 56]. The parties did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R in its entirety.
"In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.”S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R [ECF No. 58] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED.
2. The Motion for Taxation of Costs [ECF No. 55] is GRANTED. Defendants shall pay Plaintiff $263 in costs.
3. The Motion for Taxation of Attorney's Fees [ECF No. 56] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants shall pay Plaintiff $4,320 in attorney's fees.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 7, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record