UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-22588-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

ROBERT SARHAN and ANABELLA SOURY a/k/a ANABELLA SARHAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

H&H INVESTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 31] on Defendant H&H Investors, Inc.’s Bill of Costs (“Bill of Costs”) [ECF No. 17] and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Double Costs Pursuant to Appellate Order (“Motion for Fees and Costs”) [ECF No. 18]. This matter was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) for a report and recommendation on these Motions. [ECF Nos. 28, 29]. On June 16, 2020, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Costs be granted. [ECF No. 31]. Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the Report. [ECF No. 35]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion for Fees and Costs should be granted. For the first time in its objection, Plaintiffs argue that the Motion for Fees and Costs is not sufficiently verified as it does not comply with

and Florida Statute § 92.525 and that the hearing transcripts used to support the Bill of Costs “dehors the record.” Since Plaintiffs didn’t raise either argument before Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report, they are prohibited from doing so now as the issue was not properly preserved. See Williams v. McNeil,

(11th Cir. 2009) (finding that a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument that was not presented to the magistrate judge but rather raised for the first time in the party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation). Thus, the Motion for Fees and Costs is granted. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 31], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; and 2. Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Double Costs Pursuant to Appellate Order, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day_of November, 2020.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE