Opinion
21-80156-CIV-CANN/Reinhart
11-29-2022
INJURY TREATMENT CENTER OF FORT MYERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ECF No. 68]
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Reinhart's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (the “Report”) [ECF No. 68], filed on November 4, 2022.
***
On July 13, 2022, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60]. On July 13, 2022, the Court entered final judgment in favor of Defendant [ECF No. 61]. Subsequent to the Court's entry of final judgment, Defendant filed the Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (the “Motion”), seeking $10,452.50 in attorneys' fees and $9,367.50 in rebuttal expert witness fees (for a total of $19,820.00) [ECF No. 62 p. 1]. This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 63]. On November 4, 2022, Judge Reinhart issued a report, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that Defendant be awarded $3,604.00 in attorneys' fees [ECF No. 68 p. 9]. Objections to the Report were due on November 18, 2022 [ECF No. 68 p. 9]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 68 p. 9].
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 Fed.Appx. at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 Fed.Appx. 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion [ECF No. 62] should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and that Defendant should be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,604.00 for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 68 pp. 3-9].
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 68] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and costs [ECF No. 62] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3. Defendant is entitled to recover attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,604.00.
DONE AND ORDERED .