VSI Sales, LLC v. DiSIMONE ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION CASE NO. 20-61119-CIV-CANNON/Hunt VSI SALES, LLC, STRUCTURES U.S. LLC, and STRUCTURES U.S.A., LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY DISIMONE, ANGELA DISIMONE, and ENGINEERED POLE STRUCTURES, LLC, Defendants. ___________________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 121] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Report”) [ECF No. 121], filed on August 8, 2022. On March 30, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 115]. On August 8, 2022, following referral, Judge Hunt issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 121 pp. 1, 8]. Objections to the Report were due on August 22, 2022 [ECF No. 121 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 121 p. 8]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, CASE NO. 20-61119-CIV-CANNON/Hunt or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 121 pp. 3-7], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 121] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 115] is DENIED. 3. This case shall remain CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 26th day of October 2022. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record

Document Info

Docket Number: 0:20-cv-61119

Filed Date: 10/26/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/21/2024