Opinion
1:22-cv-23450-KMM
02-12-2024
MALIK MIKAIL, Plaintiff, v. 24/7 GLOBAL SECURITY, INC. and MIGUEL A. SELVA, Defendants.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Milik Mikail's Verified Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Reasonable Expenses of Litigation. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 22). Therein, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order granting it $5,999.88 in fees and $660.00 in costs to be paid to her attorneys pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See Mot. at 2. The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 23). On January 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 25), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that (1) the requested hourly rates for Plaintiff's attorneys are reasonable, and (2) that Plaintiff may recover for 12.4 hours reasonably expended by attorney Saavedra and 3.3 hours expended by attorney LaRou. See Mot. at 3. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that Plaintiff should be permitted to recover a total of $532.00 in taxable costs based on her findings that Plaintiff cannot recover for postage or some expenses associated with service of process due to a lack of supporting documentation. See id. at 7-9. This Court agrees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Magistrate Judge Louis adjusted the reasonable hours billed because some entries were “clerical in nature” or “billed excessively. See Mot. at 5-6.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis's R&R (ECF No. 25) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENTED IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded $4,690.00 in attorney's fees and $532.00 in taxable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
DONE AND ORDERED.