Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BALLARD v. SUPERSTAR JEWELRY, INC., 3:12-cv-988-J-34JRK. (2013)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20130826654 Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 16, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Klindt recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, Superstar Jewelry, Inc. and Gregory Blue (Dkt. No. 18) be granted, in part, and denied, in part, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to cl
More

ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 16, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Klindt recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, Superstar Jewelry, Inc. and Gregory Blue (Dkt. No. 18) be granted, in part, and denied, in part, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close the file. See Report at 11. Defendants have failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Upon review, the Court took the Report under advisement due to concerns with the request for attorney's fees, and directed Plaintiff to advise the Court by August 19, 2013, whether he wished to pursue or waive the claim for an award of attorney's fees. See Order (Dkt. No. 25). On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff advised the Court that counsel wished to waive the request for an award of attorneys' fees associated with this case. See Plaintiff's Response Regarding Order Dated August 2, 2013 [D.E. 25] (Dkt. No. 26). Thus, upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge with the exception of the discussion and recommendation regarding the award for attorney's fees.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court, with the exception of the discussion and recommendation regarding the award of attorney's fees in the amount of $2755.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Defendants, Superstar Jewelry, Inc. and Gregory Blue (Dkt. No. 18) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Edward Tyrone Ballard and against Defendants Superstar Jewelry, Inc. and Gregory Blue, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,600 ($2,800 in unpaid overtime plus $2,800 in liquidated damages) in damages, and $350 in costs.

b. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.

3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate any pending motions and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED.

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