MCMANUS
v.
AMERIJET INTERNATIONAL, INC.
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.
A district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting in part a defendant's motion for attorney's fees and professional costs, awarding $44,972 in fees. The plaintiff filed objections but made no substantive challenges to the recommendation, resulting in clear error review only.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting defendant's motion for attorney's fees in part and denying it in part, awarding $44,972 in attorney and professional fees to defendant's counsel.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific objections are made de novo.
[2] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific objections are made for clear error.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections 'pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.'”
Establishes the standard of review for objected portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between McManus (plaintiff) and Amerijet International, Inc. (defendant). Defendant filed a motion for attorney's fees and…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant's Verified Motion for Award of Attorney and Professional Fees (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 127]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 131]. On June 17, 2024, Judge Strauss issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”). [ECF No. 134]. On July1, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. [ECF No. 135].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint
Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In his Report, Judge Strauss recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion. Although Plaintiff filed objections, Plaintiff's brief notes that she “does not make any substantive objections to the R&R.” [ECF No. 135].¹ Therefore, the Court only reviews the Report for clear error. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Strauss's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant is entitled to $44,972 in attorney and professional fees.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Strauss's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 134], is ADOPTED in full.
(2) Defendant's Verified Motion for Award of Attorney and Professional Fees [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
(3) Defendant's counsel be awarded $44,972 in attorney and professional fees, for which let execution issue.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of July, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)