Hoewischer v. The Pantry, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER adopting 53 Report and Recommendation; denying 51 Plaintiff's Application for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Expert Fees. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 6/10/2013. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
NORMAN HOEWISCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:12-cv-2-J-34TEM

THE PANTRY, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
NORMAN HOEWISCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:12-cv-4-J-34TEM

THE PANTRY, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________
NORMAN HOEWISCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:12-cv-100-J-34TEM

THE PANTRY, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________
NORMAN HOEWISCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PANTRY, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________

Case No. 3:12-cv-109-J-34TEM

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 54,
Case No. 3:12cv2; Dkt. No. 53, Case No. 3:12cv4; Dkt. No. 44, Case No. 3:12cv100; Dkt.
No. 65, Case No. 3:12cv109; Report), entered by the Honorable Thomas E. Morris, United
States Magistrate Judge, on May 9, 2013.

In the Report, Magistrate Judge Morris

recommends that Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expert Fees (Dkt. No.
52, Case No. 3:12cv2; Dkt. No. 51, Case No. 3:12cv4; Dkt. No. 41, Case No. 3:12cv100;
Dkt. No. 63, Case No. 3:12cv109) be denied. See Report at 6. Plaintiff has failed to file
objections to the Report, 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

-2-

ORDERED:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 54, Case No.

3:12cv2; Dkt. No. 53, Case No. 3:12cv4; Dkt. No. 44, Case No. 3:12cv100; Dkt. No. 65,
Case No. 3:12cv109) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2.

Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expert Fees (Dkt. No.

52, Case No. 3:12cv2) is DENIED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expert Fees (Dkt. No.

51, Case No. 3:12cv4) is DENIED.
4.

Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expert Fees (Dkt. No.

41, Case No. 3:12cv100) is DENIED.
5.

Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expert Fees (Dkt. No.

63, Case No. 3:12cv109) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 10th day of June, 2013.

i23
Copies to:
Hon. Thomas E. Morris
Counsel of Record

-3-