ORDER

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 39), filed on September 30, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. # 25) be granted in the total amount of $23,214.10.

Defendant, who is proceeding pro se at this juncture, had the opportunity to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation, but declined to do so. The time for Defendant to file an objection has now elapsed. As discussed below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Discussion

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 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).

The Report and Recommendation thoroughly and thoughtfully addresses the issues presented and, after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

DONE and ORDERED.