FLEURANVILLE
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
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 civil rights case, the District Court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to grant defendant Miami-Dade County's motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, finding that plaintiff's federal claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation and that the defendants were the prevailing parties.
The court granted defendants' motion for attorney's fees, holding that defendants were the prevailing parties and that plaintiff's federal claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation under the Sullivan factors.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendation when a party files a proper, specific objection to a factual finding.
[2] A district court need only review the record for clear error to accept a magistrate judge's recommendation when no proper objections are filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the arrests and subsequent prosecution were supported by probable cause”
Establishes the basis for dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Roger Acosta brought federal claims against Miami-Dade County. The plaintiff's federal claims were dismissed with prejudice because the arre…
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 Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Without Foundation Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Roger Acostaʼs (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1998 (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (ECF No. 23). The Motion was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) who issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 37), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection" to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015)).
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis found Defendants are entitled to attorney's fees incurred from defending against Plaintiffs federal claims. See generally R&R. Judge Louis found that Defendants were the prevailing parties and noted that Plaintiffs' federal claims were dismissed with prejudice upon because “the arrests and subsequent prosecution were supported by probable cause.” R&R at 2. In the R&R, Judge Louis thoroughly considered the Sullivan factors, including "(1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a full-blown trial on the merits.” See generally id. (quoting Sullivan v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 773 F. 2d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985)). Judge Louis ultimately found that the Sullivan factors favor a finding that Plaintiffs' federal claims were “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." Id. This Court finds no clear error with Judge Louis' conclusions.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 37) is ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1988 (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6thday of January 2025.
K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record