Muhammad v. Shoffner

Full title: FAATIMAH MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SHOFFNER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

Date published: Aug 24, 2022

2:22-cv-02053-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-02053-SHL-tmp

08-24-2022

FAATIMAH MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SHOFFNER, et al., Defendants.

SHERYL H. LIPMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

Before the Court is Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Defendant Charles Shoffner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees be granted. (ECF No. 48).

A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the denial or grant of dispositive motions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2017). A district court reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects; the rest are reviewed for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

Here, the Report states that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 allows prevailing defendants to collect attorneys' fees upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Kidis v. Reid, 976 F.3d 708, 721-22 (6th Cir. 2020). After reviewing the record, the Magistrate Judge found just that -Plaintiff's suit was frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation, thereby warranting an award of attorneys' fees. (ECF No. 48 at PageID 540). The Magistrate Judge also recommended awarding Defendant's requested fees of $14,585, finding that this amount aligned with the prevailing market rate and represented a reasonable amount for the work done in defending against this lawsuit. (Id. at 543-44).

Plaintiff filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and legal conclusions, and the time to do so has now passed. Thus, the Court reviews the Report for clear error and finds none. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED

SHERYL H. LIPMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE