Filed: Jun. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Amended Motion and Memorandum in Support of Request for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Dkt. 73). On May 1, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 77). Judge Spaulding further recommended that the Court awards attorney's fees in the amount of $26,671.40 to
Summary: ORDER MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Amended Motion and Memorandum in Support of Request for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Dkt. 73). On May 1, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 77). Judge Spaulding further recommended that the Court awards attorney's fees in the amount of $26,671.40 to ..
More
ORDER
MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Amended Motion and Memorandum in Support of Request for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs (Dkt. 73). On May 1, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 77). Judge Spaulding further recommended that the Court awards attorney's fees in the amount of $26,671.40 to Plaintiff. No objection was filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so has passed.
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. 77) is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order;
2. Plaintiff's Amended Motion (Dkt. 73) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
3. The Court awards $26,671.40 in attorney's fees to the Plaintiff;
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
DONE and ORDERED.
