CROSS
v.
JOHNSON
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying Defendant Jermaine Johnson's Motion for Attorney's Fees. No party objected to the magistrate's recommendations, so the court reviewed for clear error only and found none.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety, denying Defendant Johnson's Motion for Attorney's Fees. The court found the magistrate's analysis to be thorough, cogent, and compelling, with no clear error identified.
[1] A party must file written objections that specifically identify the portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific…
[2] Objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must present supporting legal authority.
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“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 standard for challenging a magistrate's report—specific written objections with legal authority are required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Jermaine Johnson filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees [ECF No. 77], which was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss for …
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 De Novo Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss for resolution on Defendant Jermaine Johnson's Motion for Attorney's Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 77]. [ECF No. 78]. Judge Strauss has since issued a report, recommending that the Court deny the Motion. [ECF No. 79]. Neither party has submitted objections, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Strauss' report and recommendation 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 Strauss' Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Strauss' Report and Recommendation is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Strauss' Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 79] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED.
2. Defendant Jermaine Johnson's Motion for Attorney's Fees [ECF No. 77] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on October 21, 2024.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record