Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Gillis

Filing 115

ORDER adopting 114 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 100 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, 99 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Erin Mae Rose. The Report and Recommendation 114 is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.Defendants Erin Mae Rose Quinn and Andrew Lee Fivecoat's Motion for Attorneys' Fees 99 is DENIED.Defendant De utsche Bank Trust Company Americas' Motion for Attorneys' Fees 100 is DENIED. Plaintiff Ronald P. Gillis' Motion for Injunction 103 is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/11/2016. (LMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION RONALD P. GILLIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:14-cv-418-FtM-38CM DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, ERIN MAE ROSE QUINN and ANDREW LEE FIVECOAT, Defendants. / ORDER1 This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #114) filed on January 26, 2016. Judge Mirando recommends denying Defendants Erin Mae Rose Quinn and Andrew Lee Fivecoat's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #99); Defendant Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #100); and Plaintiff Ronald P. Gillis' Motion for Injunction (Doc. #103). The parties do not object to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. This matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See CooperHouston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon consideration of Judge Mirando's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #114). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #114) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. (2) Defendants Erin Mae Rose Quinn and Andrew Lee Fivecoat's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #99) is DENIED. (3) Defendant Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #100) is DENIED. (4) Plaintiff Ronald P. Gillis' Motion for Injunction (Doc. #103) is DENIED. (5) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 10th day of February, 2016. Copies: All Parties of Record 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?