UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO: 0:22-cv-61553-WPD

CRUZ VALDIVIESO FIGUERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALL VIP CARE, INC. and LIZ VELAZQUEZ MCKINNON,

Defendants. /

ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 149]; Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs and Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs [DE’s 133, 159]; and the August 15, 2024 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 175]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 175], Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 178], Defendants’ Objections [DE 181], and the record herein. The Court 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 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 the Objections. Having carefully considered the Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. As Magistrate Judge Hunt noted, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed a response to the other party’s motion. See [DE 159] at pp. 1, 8, 14. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, this Court is not obligated to consider a party's argument which was not raised before the Magistrate Judge and is articulated for the first time in the Objections. Williams v. McNeil,

(11th Cir. 2009). As such, the Court exercises its discretion not to consider the merits of Plaintiff and Defendants’ arguments, all of which were never raised in the first instance to Magistrate Judge Hunt. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 175] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED. 2. Both parties Objections [DE’s 178, 181] are OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs and Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs [DE’s 133, 159] are hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 4. Plaintiff is hereby awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $145,067.50 and costs in the amount of $4,006.41, for a total award of $149,073.91. 5. Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 149] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 6. Defendant is hereby awarded costs in the amount of $1,869.41. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 4th day of September, 2024.

f a ? ; 2 (F a | 4 . f PAV fs a3 v ty j ‘4 ta ase Af C4 Xe AW AVWGIAAA-T MfEe< VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS Copies to: United States District Judge Magistrate Judge Hunt Counsel of Record