CRAMASTA v. WALGREEN INCOME PROTECTION PLAN FOR PHARMACISTS AND REGISTERED NURSES, 8:12-cv-1461-T-23TGW. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140523820
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 22, 2014
Latest Update: May 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. An August 14, 2013, order (Doc. 46) refers cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 41 and 42) to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson for a report and recommendation. A February 6, 2014, order adopts the report and recommendation and grants in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff moves (Doc. 63) for attorney's fees and costs. A February 20, 2014, order (Doc. 64) refers the motion for a report and recommendation. After a hearin
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. An August 14, 2013, order (Doc. 46) refers cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 41 and 42) to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson for a report and recommendation. A February 6, 2014, order adopts the report and recommendation and grants in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff moves (Doc. 63) for attorney's fees and costs. A February 20, 2014, order (Doc. 64) refers the motion for a report and recommendation. After a hearing..
More
ORDER
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge.
An August 14, 2013, order (Doc. 46) refers cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 41 and 42) to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson for a report and recommendation. A February 6, 2014, order adopts the report and recommendation and grants in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff moves (Doc. 63) for attorney's fees and costs. A February 20, 2014, order (Doc. 64) refers the motion for a report and recommendation. After a hearing on the motion, Magistrate Judge Wilson — in a thorough and well-reasoned report (Doc. 77) — recommends denying the motion for fees and costs. The plaintiff objects (Doc. 78) to the report and recommendation, and the defendants respond (Doc. 79) to the plaintiff's objections. The defendant's response and a de novo review of the portions of the report and recommendation to which the plaintiff objects reveal that the plaintiff's objections are unfounded or unpersuasive. Accordingly, the plaintiff's objections (Doc. 78) are OVERRULED. The report and recommendation (Doc. 77) is ADOPTED. The plaintiff's motion for costs and fees (Doc. 63) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
