ORDER

CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Doc. 20). United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," Doc. 26), in which he recommends that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. To date, Plaintiff has filed no objection.

Previously, the Court remanded this case and awarded Plaintiff "just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of Defendant Eric Kessous's improper removal on September 3, 2015." (Jan. 29, 2016 Order, Doc. 19, at 5). In doing so, the Court directed Plaintiff to "move to quantify such costs and expenses, including citation to and attachment of necessary evidence." (Id.). The consequent motion was referred to Judge Smith. On recommendation, Judge Smith first noted that counsel's hourly rate—$175.00—was well below the purported range of market rates—$250.00 to 350.00. (R. & R. at 7). Next, however, Judge Smith likened counsel's time entries to "`insurance defense' billing practices," wherein an "attorney inflates the time billed for certain services" to account for "an artificially low rate for the attorney's services." (Id. at 7-8). Thus, Judge Smith recommended that the requested 25 billable hours be reduced by 14.2 but that the hourly rate remain at $175.00—for a total fee of $1,890.00, which accounts for 10.8 hours at $175.00 per hour. (Id. at 8-9).

The Court agrees that, as a general matter, the time entries are insufficiently general and excessive for the work performed. However, a downward adjustment as to the inflated quantity requires a reciprocal upward adjustment as to the deflated rate. Controlling for the former without adjusting for the latter frustrates the underlying goal—awarding reasonable fees. Thus, the rate will be adjusted to $250.00, which, according to Plaintiff's evidence, is at the bottom of the market range.

Next, Judge Smith concludes that 1.5 hours is reasonable to draft Plaintiff's twelve-page Motion for Attorney's Fees and recommends that the 3-hour time entry be cut in half. The Court, however, finds that 3 hours is more than reasonable to draft the motion. While much of the motion appears to be comprised of form language, to conclude that the motion should be prepared in only 1.5 hours contravenes the Court's aspiration that all filings be the product of deliberate and thoughtful analysis. Thus, the total hour recommendation will be increased by 1.5 hours to reflect Plaintiff's requested time entry for drafting the motion—totaling 12.3 hours.

In sum, Plaintiff will be awarded $3,075.00, which accounts for 12.3 hours at $250.00 per hour. The R&R will be modified to that extent. See Stephens v. Tolbert, 471 F.3d 1173, 1176 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) ("Even if no objections to the findings or recommendations have been filed, the district court may undertake `further review . . ., sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.'" (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985))); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE and ORDERED.