Keppel v. Nocco ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION CHARLES KEPPEL, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:20-cv-3003-KKM-AAS CHRISTOPHER NOCCO et al., Defendants. ORDER On April 18, 2022, I granted in part Defendants’ motion for entitlement to attorney's fees in this matter and directed Defendants to file a supplemental motion under Local Rule 7.01(c) to determine the amount of attorney’s fees. (Doc. 31.) I then referred the supplemental motion, (Doc. 32), to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 33). After reviewing the motion, Plaintiffs response, and all attachments, (Doc. 34), the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant the motion in part, (Doc. 37). Defendants objected, (Doc. 38), and Plaintiff responded to the objection, (Doc. 39). I sustained Defendant’s objection and remanded the Report and Recommendation to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration. (Doc. 40.) The Magistrate Judge amended the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 41.) The fourteen-day deadline for objections to the Report and Recommendation has passed without either party lodging any further objections. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Ifa party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). Upon review and in the absence of any objection, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated therein, (Doc. 41), and awards Defendants $1,284.20 in fees. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 41), is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Defendant’s Rule 7.01(c) Motion, (Doc. 32), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the Defendants are awarded $1027,36 in fees jointly and severally against Attorneys McGuire and Lirot, and $256.84 against Keppel. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 6, 2023. patron Mizelle United States District Judge