Opinion
Case No. 2:05-cv-421-FtM-34SPC.
April 4, 2008
ORDER
This is a "written opinion" under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act and therefore is available electronically. However, it has been entered only to decide the motions addressed herein and is not intended for official publication or to serve as precedent.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 118; Report), entered February 8, 2008, recommending that Defendant's Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 102) and Defendant's Amended Motion for Costs (Dkt. No. 104) be denied as untimely filed. To date, no objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.
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). "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Rule 72(b) advisory committee's note (1983); see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784-85 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Therefore, if no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings, but will review the legal conclusions in the report de novo to determine whether there is any clear error. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Based upon an independent examination of the record and a de novo review of the legal conclusions, the Court finds that there is no clear error on the face of the record and it will accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 118) is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 102) and Defendant's Amended Motion for Costs (Dkt. No. 104) are DENIED.DONE AND ORDERED.