HYBRID PHARMA LLC
v.
KNISPEL
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 District Court order, the court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on a motion for costs in a pharmaceutical dispute. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for costs after finding no clear error in the magistrate's thorough analysis.
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Motion for Costs, adopting the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
[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 procedural requirement for objecting to a magistrate's report
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves Hybrid Pharma LLC and a defendant named Knispel. The defendants filed a Motion for Costs on September 30, 2024, which was referred 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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch for a Report and Recommendation on the Defendants’ Motion for Costs [ECF No. 187], filed on September 30, 2024. Judge Augustin-Birch has since issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion. [ECF No. 195]. 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 Augustin-Birch's 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.” 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. See id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch's 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 Augustin-Birch's Report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion for Costs.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 195] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Settlement [ECF No. 187] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on October 28, 2024.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record