UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-60822-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

ELPIDIO JOSE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC.,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF AWARD OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Nova Southeastern University, Inc. (“Defendant”)’s Motion for Determination of Amount of Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs against Plaintiff Dr. Elpidio Jose Garcia [DE 52]; the May 18, 2023 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt, recommending that Plaintiff be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,225 [DE 52]; and Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 53].1 The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the

1 The Court notes that no Objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed by Plaintiff Dr. Elpidio Jose Garcia and the time to do so has passed. specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones,

(11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort,

(citing Goney v. Clark,

(3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific

objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort,

; see also

(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort,

;

(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendant’s

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 53]. Having carefully considered the Defendant’s Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with the Magistrate’s finding that that 50 hours adequately compensates Defendant’s counsel for the hours reasonably spent for attorney work in this case. See [DE 52] at pp. 4-7. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 52] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 53] is OVERRULED; 3. Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Amount of Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs against Plaintiff Dr. Elpidio Jose Garcia [DE 52] is hereby GRANTED IN PART; 4. Defendant is hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,225.00; 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address listed below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 2023.

f a ? ; 2 (F a “4 if { FO etre zd a3 v ty j ‘4 ta ase Af Avy ANA JAY A” Ci t ff l LLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Hunt Elpidio Jose Garcia 1679 E. Judi Street Casa Grande, AZ 85122