UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

CYNTHIA B. SCOTT, et al., CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00036 Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

HAROLD W. CLARKE, et al., JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the R&R from Magistrate Judge Hoppe, addressing Plaintiffs’ petitions for award of attorneys’ fees following their motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement’s quarterly reporting provision. Dkt. 812 (R&R); Dkts. 688, 734 (petitions for award of fees). In their first petition for attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs sought $11,445.60 for 50.2 hours of work performed in connection with their bringing the motion for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. R&R at 7–8; Dkt. 688. In their second (supplemental) petition for attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs sought an additional $957.60 for 4.2 hours spent trying to engage Defendants regarding the types of documents they would produce, and to seek mediation. R&R at 8; Dkt. 734. Plaintiffs sought a total of $12,403.20 in attorneys’ fees. R&R at 9. In the thorough and well-reasoned R&R, the magistrate judge considered the parties’ arguments, supporting documentation, and applicable law, and recommended that the Court grant in part Plaintiffs’ first petition and award Plaintiffs $8,570.80 in attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the enforcement action. R&R at 1, 23–24. The magistrate judge recommended denying the supplemental petition requesting an additional $957.60 in fees related to discussions about document production and the mediation. Id. at 22-23. Though advised of the right to object to the proposed findings and recommendations of the R&R within fourteen days, and that failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of review of the R&R, id. at 24, no party has filed objections within the fourteen-day period. The Court reviews de novo every portion of an R&R to which objections have been filed.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). But, where, as here, no objections to an R&R are filed, the Court reviews only for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. In that case, the Court need not provide any explanation for adopting the R&R. Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983) (“Absent objection, we do not believe that any explanation need be given for adopting the report.”). No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the Court can discern no clear error in the R&R. Indeed, the magistrate judge carefully followed the Fourth Circuit’s three-step process to calculate a reasonable attorneys’ fee award. See McAfee v. Boczar,

(4th Cir. 2014); R&R at 12-22. The Court is of the opinion that the R&R should be ADOPTED in its entirety. Dkt. 812. Thus, the Court will GRANT in part Plaintiffs’ petition for attorneys’ fees, Dkt. 688, and DENY Plaintiffs’ supplemental petition for attorneys’ fees, Dkt. 734. Plaintiffs are hereby AWARDED $8,570.80 in reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing their motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to send this Order to all counsel of record. Entered this 26th _ day of March, 2021. we (arntan A fon’ _ SENIOR Nit MD STATES DISTRICT JUDGE