LONGEVIQUEST, LLC.
v.
WACLAW JAN KROCZEK
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 accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees.
[1] A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which a party objects.
[2] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's recommendation on portions of a report to which no objection is made, provided there is no clear error on the face of the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for parties to object to magistrate judge recommendations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sought attorneys' fees. The magistrate judge recommended awarding $22,317.75, finding the requested amount reasonable but reducing it by 10%…
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 De Novo Review Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 26]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryan M. McCabe's Report and Recommendation (“the Report"), issued on October 2, 2025 [ECF No. 26]. The Report recommends that Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees (the “Motion”) be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 24]. Objections to the Report were due on October 16, 2025 [ECF No. 26 pp. 7–8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 26 p. 8]. Upon review, the Report is ACCEPTED [ECF No. 26]; Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in accordance with the Report and this Order.
LEGAL STANDARDS
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject,
CASE NO. 24-81129-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.
DISCUSSION
The Report recommends that Plaintiff be awarded $22,317.75 in attorneys' fees, an amount determined in the Report to be reasonable [ECF No. 24 pp. 5–7 (finding Plaintiff's proposed attorneys' fees for four attorneys on the case—which totaled to $24,797.50—“well within the range of rates ordinarily charged in this community for legal services,” but reducing that total number by 10% due to certain billing deficiencies like multiple timekeepers billing for the same task)]. No party objected to this conclusion, and the Court sees no clear basis to disturb it.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 26 pp. 1–8], it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 26] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED IN PART. 3. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $22,317.75 [ECF No. 26], to be paid by Defendant within 90 days of this Order.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 20th day of January 2026.
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record