STAR2STAR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

v.

AMG GROUP OF BRUNSWICK, LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2022-08-25

No. 8:20-cv-2078

District Court, M.D. Florida (2022)

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 adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding attorney fees and costs.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sought attorney fees and costs. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it without prejudice in part. Defen…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review Legal Conclusions De Novo Review Of Legal Conclusions Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 5, 2022. (Doc. 85). Judge Sneed recommends that “Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs” (Doc. 78) be granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. Judge Sneed specifically recommends that the Court find that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees, and that Plaintiff be allowed to file a bill of costs and supporting documentation.¹ Defendant has filed an objection. (Doc. 90). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no

ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) “Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs” (Doc. 78) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. (3) The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees. Plaintiff is directed to file its supplemental motion for amount of attorney’s fees in accordance with the requirements of Local Rule 7.01(c). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 25th day of August, 2022.

* * * * *

TOM BARBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

1 Plaintiff filed its proposed bill of costs on August 19, 2022. (Doc. 88). requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sneed’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Sneed’s well-reasoned factual findings and conclusions, and the objection does not provide a basis for overruling the report and recommendation. Consequently, Consequently, “Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs” is granted in part and denied without prejudice in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Sneed’s report and recommendation (Doc. 85) is AFFIRMED and

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)
Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw