UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

SJ MEDCONNECT, INC., d/b/a Thalamus,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-903-MMH-JBT

DANIEL BOICE,

Defendant.

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 100; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 14, 2023. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends that Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Renewed Requests for Costs (Dkt. No. 99; Motion) be granted to the extent set forth in the Report and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter a judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of Plaintiff. See Report at 1, 11. No objections to the Report have been filed, 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.”

(b). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also

(b)(1).

However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.;

see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden,

(11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”).

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. Accordingly, it is hereby

1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 11-12. ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 100) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Renewed Requests for Costs (Dkt. No. 99) is GRANTED to the extent stated herein. 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of Plaintiff SJ Medconnect, Inc., c/o Grellas Shah LLP, 20400 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 280, Cupertino, California 95014, and against Defendant Daniel Boice, #73715-018, FCI Butner Low, Old NC Hwy. 75, Butner, North Carolina 27509, in the total amount of $223,413.00, which represents $188,470.00 in attorneys’ fees and $34,943.00 in costs. Post-judgment interest will

accrue at the statutory rate set forth in

. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2023.

United States District Judge

-3-

ja

Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party