Dixon v. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Dixon v. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

WILLIAM DIXON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:22-cv-327-VMC-SPF

WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Sean Flynn’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 34), filed on December 16, 2022, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Award Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 30) be granted in part and denied in part. Mr. Dixon filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 35). 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). 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 recommendation.

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).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Flynn’s Report and Recommendation as well as Mr. Dixon’s Objection thereto, the Court overrules the Objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Flynn’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that the Objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 34) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff William Dixon’s Motion for Attorney Fees

(Doc. # 30) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (3) Mr. Dixon is awarded $2,920.00 in attorneys’ fees. (4) Mr. Dixon’s motion is otherwise denied. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 6th day of February, 2023.

Lap? On. Heenpley Coed VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown