ALEXANDER
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
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 accepts in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying Defendant's Bill of Taxable Costs.
Defendant moved for attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion. The Court reviewed the report and reco…
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs (“Motion for Fees and Non-Taxable Costs”) be denied [ECF No. 115]. On September 12, 2021, the Court referred Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 107 (referring ECF No. 103)].
On December 13, 2021, Judge Reinhart issued the instant Report (“R&R”), recommending that the Motion for Fees and Non-Taxable Costs be denied [ECF No. 115]. The R&R states that the parties shall file any objections within fourteen days of the date of service of the R&R [ECF No. 115 pp. 7–8]. No objections have been filed. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in this case and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be correct to the extent it determines, for purposes of assessing fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5k, that Plaintiff’s CASE NO. 20-80336-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
claims under Title VII were not entirely frivolous or groundless. The Court therefore agrees, consistent with the conclusion in the R&R, that Defendant’s Bill of Taxable Costs should be DENIED, but the Court REJECTS the R&R to the extent it draws other conclusions or makes any other suggestions about the nature of Plaintiff's evidence or Defendant’s actions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The R&R [ECF No. 115] is ACCEPTED to the limited extent noted in this Order. 2. Defendant’s Bill of Taxable Costs [ECF Nos. 103] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 10th day of January 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record