DEAN

v.

WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ECF No. 54]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge McCabe’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Fee Amount (the “Report”) [ECF No. 54], filed on October 19, 2022. *** The parties filed a Notice of Settlement [ECF No. 33] and a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement [ECF No. 35].

On July 5, 2022, the Court approved the FLSA Settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice [ECF No. 37]. Subsequent to the Court’s approval of the settlement, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Determine Fee Amount (the “Motion”), seeking $6,642.50 in attorneys’ fees incurred in this individual case and $8,000.00 in attorneys’ fees for time incurred in the Wright collective action (for a total of $14,642.50) [ECF No. 44 p. 24]. This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 39].

On October 19, 2022, Judge McCabe issued a report, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that Plaintiff be awarded $3,640.00 in attorneys’ fees [ECF No. 54 p. 7]. Objections to the Report were due on November 2, 2022 [ECF No. 54 p. 7]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 54 p. 7]. 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). Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. The

Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion [ECF No. 44] should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and that Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,640.00 for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 54 pp. 2–7]. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 54] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Fee Amount [ECF No. 44] is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

CASE NO. 22-14044-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

3. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,640.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 7th day of November 2022.

CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: counsel of record