INJURY TREATMENT CENTER OF FORT MYERS, INC.
v.
STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY 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 court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the defendant's motion for attorney's fees in part.
After summary judgment was granted for the defendant, the defendant sought attorney's fees and costs. The Magistrate Judge recommended awarding a port…
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 Objections To Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
[ECF No. 61]. Subsequent to the Court’s entry of final judgment, Defendant filed the Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Motion”), seeking $10,452.50 in attorneys’ fees and $9,367.50 in rebuttal expert witness fees (for a total of $19,820.00) [ECF No. 62 p. 1]. This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 63].
On November 4, 2022, Judge Reinhart issued a report, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that Defendant be awarded $3,604.00 in attorneys’ fees [ECF No. 68 p. 9]. Objections to the Report were due on November 18, 2022 [ECF No. 68 p. 9]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 68 p. 9]. 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. 62] should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and that Defendant should be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,604.00 for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 68 pp. 3–9]. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 68] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and costs [ECF No. 62] is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
CASE NO. 21-80156-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
3. Defendant is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,604.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 28th day of November 2022.
Cs M. 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)