RUDY
v.
BEST ELECTRIC AIR CONDITIONING & PLUMBING LLC
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs in part.
Plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs. A Magistrate Judge recommended awarding $1,530.00 in attorney's fees. Neither party objected to the rec…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Joseph Rudy moves for attorney's fees and costs against Defendant Best Electric Air Conditioning & Plumbing LLC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and the court's Order (Dkt. 23). [fn 1] (Motion, Dkt. 28.) On September 4, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be granted in part and that Plaintiff be awarded $1,530.00 in attorney's fees. (Dkt. 31.) Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge "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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Jordan v. Comm'r, Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020). For dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) ("A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report to which objections are filed."). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 31) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED
IN PART.
3. Plaintiff is awarded $1,530.00 in attorney's fees.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on September 23, 2024.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
[fn 1]: Although the Second Amended Complaint names “DOES 1-100” as Defendants, those Defendants have not been named, appeared in this case, or otherwise participated in this case since removal. (See Dkt. 20.) Accordingly, “DOES 1-100" will not be further discussed herein.
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)
- Jordan v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009)