Opinion
Civil Action 6:23-CV-012-CHB
06-29-2023
EMELITA AYOS, M.D., Plaintiff, v. TRG HOLDINGS G&H, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CLARIA HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition filed by United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. [R. 40]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and for sanctions [R. 10] and the Defendants' Motion to Strike [R. 32].
In the recommended disposition, Magistrate Judge Atkins discussed the amount of attorney's fees requested by Plaintiff and considered such fees in light of the circumstances of this case, including Defendants' and defense counsel's arguments opposing Plaintiff's calculations. [See R. 40, pp. 2-3]. Magistrate Judge Atkins also considered Plaintiff's request for sanctions [id. at 11] and the Defendants' Motion to Strike two exhibits attached to Plaintiff's itemization and memorandum in support of her claim to sanctions [id. at 13]. Ultimately, after thorough review, Magistrate Judge Atkins recommended: (1) that Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees be granted and that Defendants and their counsel “should jointly and severally pay Plaintiff Emelita Ayos the amount of $16,149.50”; (2) that Plaintiff's request for sanctions be denied; and (3) that Defendants' Motion to Strike be granted. [See id. at 13-14].
Magistrate Judge Atkins's Recommended Disposition advised the parties that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. [Id. at 14] The time to file objections has now passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Recommended Disposition nor sought an extension of time to do so.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that recommended disposition. See United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Recommended Disposition; specifically, the Court observes Magistrate Judge Atkins's detailed consideration of the parties' arguments regarding the propriety of either attorney's fees or sanctions in this case. The Court will therefore adopt it as the opinion of the Court.
Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition [R. 40] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
2. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees [R. 10] is GRANTED, and Defendants and their counsel-Donald L. Miller, II and Ethan F. Johnson, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer P.A.- SHALL jointly and severally pay Plaintiff Emelita Ayos the amount of $16,149.50.
3. Plaintiff's request for sanctions [R. 10] is DENIED.
4. Defendants' Motion to Strike [R. 32] is GRANTED.