Opinion
Case No.: 6:10-cv-1907-Orl-35GJK
08-10-2011
ERICA O'BRYAN, Plaintiff, v. JACK ANDRU ROSS, M.D., TINA M. HILEMAN, and AFTER-HOURS PEDIATRIC AND FAMILY CARE CENTER, PLC, Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant Tina Hileman's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 15) and Plaintiff's response thereto (Dkt. 19). On June 21, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendant Hileman's motion be denied. (Dkt. 23) No objection was filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so has passed.
A review of the record reveals that the Court declined to adopt Judge Kelly's initial Report and Recommendation because the reasoning contained therein was based on a February 4, 2011 Order that was improvidently entered by this Court. (Dkt. 18) At that time this Court directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Hileman's motion. Both, Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's response were before Judge Kelly for consideration when he entered the second Report and Recommendation that is presently before the Court.
In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 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 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); see Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). 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 (11 th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, and 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. 23) is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order;
2. Defendant Hileman's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 15) is DENIED; and
3. The CLERK is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 10th day of August 2011.
MARY S. SCRIVEN
UNITH5 STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Party