Jeff Fleuranville v. Miami-Dade County, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:23-cv-21797-KMM JEFF FLEURANVILLE, Plaintiff, Vv.

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. ae ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants Officers Wislyn Joseph,' Gregory Cheever, Ernesto Miranda, and Lashonya Leonard’s (collectively, “Defendants”’) Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“Mot.” or “Motion”). (ECF No. 39). The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 “to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or to issue a Report and Recommendation.” (ECF No. 40).

Magistrate Judge Louis issued an Amended Report and Recommendation on February 3, 2026, recommending that the Motion be granted in as much as it seeks fees incurred at the trial level, but denied in as much as it seeks fees incurred on appeal. See generally (ECF No. 44) (“Amended R&R”). ' The Court notes that the case caption and Amended R&R each refer to this Defendant as “Joseph Wislin,” but the Court uses “Wislyn Joseph” here to be consistent with the Motion. ? Miami-Dade County was dropped as a Defendant between Plaintiff’s original Complaint and the Amended Complaint. See (ECF Nos. 1, 10). Darlene Cordero was never served. (ECF No. 41) at 7n.3.

No objections were filed to Magistrate Judge Louis’s original Report and Recommendation, at (ECF No. 42), before the time to do so passed.3 The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Amended R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).

The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).

In her Amended Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that: (1) Defendants’ attorney’s fee award should be calculated at the hourly rate of $350.00; (2) Defendants should be awarded the full amount of time incurred in securing the favorable outcome at the district court level, for a total of 39.75 hours; (3) Defendants should not be awarded the 22

3 The original Report and Recommendation was vacated. (ECF No. 43). The amended R&R was issued only to reflect that Defendant Darlene Cordero was never served and to clarify that the Motion was not brought on her behalf. R&R at 1 n.1. Because no substantive changes were made in the amended R&R, the objections period was not reopened. Id. at 7 n.5. hours of fees incurred defending against Plaintiff's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit; and (4) Defendants should be awarded $13,912.50 in reasonable attorney’s fees. See generally Amended R&R. This Court agrees.

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the Amended R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Amended R&R (ECF No. 44) is ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants are awarded $13,912.50 in attorney’s fees.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 3rd _ day of February, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record