D'CLUTE
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
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 for the Southern District of Florida accepted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding a Motion for Sanctions filed by Defendant against Plaintiff D'Clute. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, imposing daily sanctions of $1,000 if Plaintiff failed to provide a required answer and awarding $2,000 in costs and attorneys' fees to Defendant.
The court granted the Motion for Sanctions in part and denied it in part. The court imposed daily sanctions of $1,000 per day until Plaintiff provides the required answer, with a cap of $10,000 after ten consecutive days, at which point more severe sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) may be entertained. Additionally, the court awarded $2,000 in costs and attorneys' fees to Defendant.
“To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for challenging a magistrate judge's report and the standard of review applicable when no objections are filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff D'Clute failed to provide an answer by a November 11, 2024 deadline established by the Magistrate Judge. Defendant Florida Power & Light Com…
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 comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge McCabe's Final Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on November 20, 2024 [ECF No. 42], and Magistrate Judge McCabe's Preliminary Report and Recommendation (the “Preliminary Report”), issued on November 8, 2024 [ECF No. 40]. The Report recommends that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (the "Motion") [ECF No. 30] be granted in part and denied in part. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Upon review of the Report and the Motion, the Report [ECF No. 42] is ACCEPTED, and the Motion [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report.
***
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report,
CASE NO. 24-80563-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following review, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the Report and no errors of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 42] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report. 3. If Plaintiff failed to provide an answer by the November 11, 2024, deadline [ECF No. 40], Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant a sanction of $1,000 per day until she provides the answer. If Plaintiff fails to provide an answer for ten (10) consecutive days, reaching a total sanction of $10,000, the Court will entertain a motion for the more severe sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A). 4. Separate and apart from these sanctions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant $2,000 in costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this Motion. Plaintiff must transmit this payment on or before December 11, 2024, in accordance with the Report [ECF No. 42].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 9th day of December 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)