UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

RALPH GARRAMONE, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-340-SPC-KCD

DANESH NOSHIRVAN,

Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc. 155). Judge Dudek recommends that the Court deny Defendant Danesh Noshirvan’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. 118). Defendant has not objected to the R & R, and the time to do so has expired. The R & R is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,” a magistrate judge’s R & R.

(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R & R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn,

, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp.,

(11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain”; (8) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.,

, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. So, it accepts and adopts the R & R in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Judge Dudek’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 155) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. 118) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 8, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record