HORACE
v.
ARIA
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 court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the defendant's motion for attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff sued for race and sex discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The court dismissed the claims for lack of factual al…
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 the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 42]. Upon review, the Report is ACCEPTED [ECF No. 42] with the clarification referenced below. Defendant’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 36] is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint in this matter, alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act [ECF No. 19]. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 20]. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, concluding that the Amended Complaint lacked factual allegations to plausibly state a claim for race discrimination [ECF No 31 p. 4], and further concluding that Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims warranted dismissal for lack of exhaustion [ECF No. 31 p. 5]. After the Court’s ruling, Defendant filed a Motion for Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees, arguing that it is entitled to fee-shifting under Title VII because Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous [ECF No. 36].
On October 17, 2023, following referral, Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 42]. No party has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.
LEGAL STANDARDS
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, 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).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 42] is ACCEPTED, although the Court does not adopt any suggestion in the Report that Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for race discrimination, for the reasons stated in the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 31]. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 36] is DENIED. CASE NO. 22-81766-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
3. The case remains CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 17th day of November 2023.
AILEEN CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: 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)