THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24; Report), entered on November 30, 2011. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Morris recommends that Plaintiff's Uncontested Petition for Attorney's Fees be granted, and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $4,056.70 for attorney's fees. See Report at 7. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed.
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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff's Uncontested Petition for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $4,056.70 for attorney's fees.
ja Copies to: The Honorable Thomas E. Morris United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...