ADDERLEY
v.
PREFERRED PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATES LLC

S.D. Fla. | 2025-09-04
No. 24-61295
District Court, S.D. Florida (2025)

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.

Synopsis

The District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granted in part a plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, awarding $4,400 in fees while otherwise denying the motion.


Holding

The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and granted Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees in part, awarding $4,400 in attorney's fees while otherwise denying the motion.


Headnotes

[1] A magistrate judge's factual findings are adopted and incorporated into a district court's opinion when no timely objections are filed.

[2] A district court may conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report even in the absence of objections.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 31] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”

Establishes the standard for adopting a Magistrate Judge's Report when no objections are timely filed.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Adderley filed a Verified Motion for Attorney Fees against Preferred Primary Care Associates LLC. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 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.


Opinion of the Court

MAGISTRATE JUDGE; GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 31], issued on August 25, 2025, and Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorney Fees [DE 18], filed on November 18, 2025. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 31] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 31] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).

Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 31] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 31] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Attorney Fees [DE 18] is hereby GRANTED IN PART as follows: a. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,400; b. Plaintiff's Motion is otherwise DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 4th day of September, 2025. fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af Lf Xe AW AVWGIAAA-T MfEe<

VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record Magistrate Judge Patrick Hunt


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw