TAMIAMI CONDOMINIUM WAREHOUSE PLAZA ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
MARKEL INSURANCE 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 affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, granting the defendant's motions for attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff filed objections to a magistrate judge's report recommending an award of attorney's fees and costs to the defendant. The plaintiff's objecti…
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 Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendations [DE 168], Objections to the Report and Recommendation [DE 170] filed by Plaintiff, Tamiami Condominium Warehouse Plaza Association, Inc., and the Response to Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 171] filed by Defendant, Markel American Insurance Company. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Non-Taxable Costs [DE 150] be granted in part, and that Defendant be awarded a total of $68,580.60 in attorneys’ fees. The Report also recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 159] be granted in part, and that Defendant be awarded a total of $10,792.13 in costs. For the reasons stated herein, the Report is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Objections. Plaintiff’s Objections are not actually objections to any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or conclusions. Instead, Plaintiff incorporated by reference a newly filed Verified Motion for Entry of Order Disallowing Fees Award Notwithstanding Entitlement Recommendation, and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [DE 169], in which Plaintiff attempts to re-argue arguments previously raised before Magistrate Judge Louis.1 In response, Defendant argues that by failing to raise any specific objections to the Report, Plaintiff has waived the right to a de novo review of the Report and the Court should review the Report for clear error. (Resp. at 1-2.) The Court may “accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendation
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. Gayle v. Meade, Case No. 20-21553-Civ-Cooke/Goodman, 2020 WL 2086482, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2020).
However, the Court must review legal conclusions de novo. Id. Objections to a report and recommendation are to oppose specifically identified portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report, to specify the basis for such opposition, and to provide supporting legal authority. See S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b); Objection, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “objection” as “[a] formal statement opposing something that has occurred, or is about to occur”). Plaintiff has not specifically opposed any portion of the Report. Instead, Plaintiff filed an entirely new motion, which is not an objection and, thus, the
Court, in its discretion, will not consider it. See, e.g., Stevenson v. Orlando’s Auto Specialists, Inc., Case No. 6:07-cv-500-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 11435664, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2008) ( declining to consider document filed by defendant and finding same not to be an objection to the magistrate’s report and recommendation). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Accordingly, it is
2. Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Entry of Order Disallowing Fees Award Notwithstanding Entitlement Recommendation, and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [DE 169] is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 6th day of November, 2020
RODNEY SMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: Counsel of Record