Opinion
Case No: 8:13-cv-1520-MSS-35TGW
08-28-2014
ARY MCMILLAN and PAUL E. SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MASRTECH GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, and AHMED MOHAMED, Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiff, Ary McMillan. (Dkt. 17) On August 9, 2013, Plaintiffs McMillan and Smith filed a Motion for Default Judgment against all Defendants. In their Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing to determine damages, costs, and attorney's fees. (Dkt. 12) On November 25, 2013, this Court entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. 13) and by separate Order on November 26, 2013, an evidentiary hearing was set before United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Dkt 14) The evidentiary hearing was held before Judge Wilson on January 8, 2014. (Dkt 15) Thereafter, on August 6, 2014, Judge Wilson issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 20) recommending that the Motion for Award of Costs and Attorney's Fees be granted and that default judgment be entered against Defendants. No objection was filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so has passed.
The preceding motions in this case, including the Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. 12) were filed by both Plaintiffs, Ary McMillian and Paul E. Smith. During the evidentiary hearing conducted before Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on January 8, 2014, counsel for Plaintiffs informed the Court that co-Plaintiff Smith is now deceased and that counsel would be proceeding solely on behalf of Plaintiff McMillian. (Dkt. 15)
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). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). 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. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 20) is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED;
3. The CLERK is directed to enter judgment for Plaintiff Ary McMillan and against Defendants, Masrtech Group, LLC and Ahmed Mohamed, in the total amount of: a) $7,617.98 in damages; b) $8,820.00 in attorney's fees; and c) $488.39 in costs. This award shall bear post-judgment interest at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
4. Upon the entry of judgment in this case, the CLERK is further directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of August, 2014.
/s/_________
MARY S. SCRIVEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Parties