STOREY
v.
CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT, LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2023-03-01
No. 2:21-cv-293
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

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.

Holding

The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff moved for costs and attorneys' fees. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part, awarding $26,020.75 in fees. No party objec…

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.

Topics
Award Of Costs Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review Plain Error Standard Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Award Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Defendant. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 59) and United States Magistrate Judge Nicolas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 72). Judge Mizell recommends that Storey’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees be granted in part and denied in part and that the clerk should be directed to amend the judgment in favor of Storey to add an award of fees in the amount of $26,020.75. (Doc. 72). No party objected, and the time to do so has expired. The matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain”; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d

1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. It accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in full.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 72) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the

findings incorporated herein. 2. Plaintiff Storey’s Motion for an Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 59) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court grants the Motion to the extent that the Court will award fees for $26,020.75. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to amend the judgment in favor of Plaintiff to add an award of fees in the amount of $26,020.75. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March1, 20238.

, Lh platrath< 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. in part,” the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw