ROBINSON
v.
HERRING
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 accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and grants the unopposed motion for reimbursement of pro bono litigation expenses.
Plaintiff's counsel filed an unopposed motion for reimbursement of pro bono litigation expenses. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendati…
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 166]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Reimbursement of Pro Bono Litigation Expenses (the “Report”) [ECF No. 166], filed on August 1, 2024. On July 16, 2024, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion for Reimbursement of Pro Bono Litigation Expenses (the "Motion”). [ECF No. 161]. On August 1, 2024, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 166 p. 2]. Objections to the Report were due on August 15, 2024 [ECF No. 166 p. 3]. On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff's counsel filed a notice advising the Court that neither party intended to file any objections to the Report [ECF No. 168 p. 1]. The time to file objections has now expired. [ECF No. 166 p. 3].
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. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON
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. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 166 pp. 1–2], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 166] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion [ECF No. 161] is GRANTED.
3. This case shall remain CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 27th day of August 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
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)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)