Summary
finding motion for attorney's fees untimely and no excusable neglect where the motion for fees was filed 27 days after the entry of judgment due to attorney's calendaring error
Summary of this case from Grigoli v. Scott Cochrane, Inc.Opinion
Case No. 2:02-cv-303-FtM-33DNF.
November 16, 2006
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #83), entered on October 26, 2006, recommending that the Motion for Determination of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. #77) and the request for prejudgment interest be denied as untimely. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).
After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #83) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
2. The Motion for Determination of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. #77) is DENIED as untimely.
3. The request for prejudgment interest is DENIED as untimely.
DONE and ORDERED.