Mraz v. I.C. Systems, Inc.

Filing 111

ORDERED: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 110) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Doc. 96) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 82) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 71) is GRANTED and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is AWARDED $72,651.50 in attorney's fees. Plaintiff is AWARDED $1,366.79 in costs. Plaintiff's fees and costs award BEARS post-judgment interest (under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)) from September 5, 2019, until paid. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant of $72,651.50 in attorney's fees and $1,366.79 in costs, both bearing post-judgment interest from September 5, 2019, until paid. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/8/2021. (AEH)

Case 2:18-cv-00254-SPC-NPM Document 111 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1830

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
VICTOR MRAZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:18-cv-254-SPC-NPM

I.C. SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 110). Judge Mizell recommends
granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 71). The R&R also
indicates the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motions for judicial notice (Doc. 82)
and sanctions (Doc. 96). Neither party timely objected, so the 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, in whole or
in part,” the magistrate judge’s R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence

Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The
Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed
hyperlink does not affect this Order.
1

Case 2:18-cv-00254-SPC-NPM Document 111 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1831

of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the
R&R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error
as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing
Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was
plain”; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error
would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.”

Farley v.

Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the
Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the well-reasoned R&R
(Doc. 110) in full.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 110) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Doc.
96) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 82) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 71) is
GRANTED and DENIED in part.

2

Case 2:18-cv-00254-SPC-NPM Document 111 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1832

a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $72,651.50 in attorney’s fees.
b. Plaintiff is AWARDED $1,366.79 in costs.
c. Plaintiff’s fees and costs award BEARS post-judgment interest
(under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)) from September 5, 2019, until paid.
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Plaintiff and against
Defendant of $72,651.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,366.79 in costs, both
bearing post-judgment interest from September 5, 2019, until paid.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 8, 2021.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3