Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Antekeier v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 1:17cv786. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Virginia Number: infdco20181024g59 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER T.S. ELLIS, III , District Judge . On August 29, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan entered a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), finding that plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 2617(a)(3), and recommending awarding plaintiff $395,375.23 in fees and costs. Upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned Report, to which no objections have been filed, and the record, and having f
More

ORDER

On August 29, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan entered a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), finding that plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3), and recommending awarding plaintiff $395,375.23 in fees and costs.

Upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned Report, to which no objections have been filed, and the record, and having found no clear error,1

The Court ADOPTS, as its own, the findings of fact and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, as set forth in the Report (Doc. 194).

Accordingly,

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs (Doc. 144) is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter an amended final judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $842,835.79 — representing the jury and statutory award of $447,460.56 to plaintiff and the award of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $395,375.23.

The Clerk is further directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

FootNotes


1. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (in the absence of any objections to a magistrate's report, the court "need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'").
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer