Kilgore v. Hunter, 1:16-cv-340. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20181218e75
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. , District Judge . On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 176) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Court's Order Referring Motion (Doc. 172). Magistrate Judge Steger recommends Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and 28 U.S.C. 1927 (Doc. 170) be denied. No objection has been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed t
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. , District Judge . On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 176) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Court's Order Referring Motion (Doc. 172). Magistrate Judge Steger recommends Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and 28 U.S.C. 1927 (Doc. 170) be denied. No objection has been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed th..
More
ORDER
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR., District Judge.
On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 176) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Court's Order Referring Motion (Doc. 172). Magistrate Judge Steger recommends Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Doc. 170) be denied. No objection has been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record in this matter and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steger's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendants' Motion (Doc. 170) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings").
Source: Leagle
