MEIDE

v.

PULSE EVOLUTION CORPORATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 182; Report) entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 23, 2022. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Defendants' motions for attorneys' fees and costs (Docs. 171, 172, 174) be granted to the extent that judgments be entered as set forth in the Report. See Report at 2, 45. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court “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). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that

Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become

11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge with a minor modification.2 Accordingly, it is hereby

of the Court. 2. Defendants Centineo, Natale, Agnes King and John King's Supplemental Motion for Amount of Attorneys' Fees to Be Awarded as Sanctions (Doc. 171), Defendants Laura Anthony's and Michael Anthony's Verified

Supplemental Memorandum on Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. 172), and Pulse Defendants' Supplemental Motion as to Amount of Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 174) are GRANTED to the extent set forth below.

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment in favor of Defendants, Laura Anthony and Michael Anthony, and against Plaintiff, Scott Meide, for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,620.00, and a separate judgment in favor of Defendants, Laura Anthony and Michael

Anthony, and against Plaintiff, Scott Meide, and his counsel, William H. McLean, jointly and severally, for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,019.50.3

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties