Wise v. City of Lauderhill

Filing 76

ORDER adopting 71 Report and Recommendations; denying as moot 49 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 50 Motion for Bill of Costs; granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 3/13/2017. (zvr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 15-cv-60686-GAYLES
ROSE WISE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LAUDERHILL,
Defendant.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge William C. Turnoff (the “Report”) [ECF No. 71], filed on January 11, 2017. In his Report,
Judge Turnoff recommends that: (1) Defendant City of Lauderhill’s (the “City”) Bill of Costs [ECF
No. 50] be granted; (2) the City’s Amended Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees and/or NonTaxable Costs [ECF No. 51] be granted in part and denied in part; (3) the City’s earlier-filed Motion
for Attorney’s Fees and/or Non-Taxable Costs [ECF No. 50] be denied as moot; and (4) pro se
Plaintiff Rose Wise’s request for a stay of consideration of these motions pending the resolution
of her appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [ECF No. 59] be denied.
Objections to the Report were due on January 25, 2017. On January 23rd, Wise filed a
motion seeking an indeterminate amount of additional time to respond as she hoped to retain
counsel [ECF No. 72]. The Court, construing the document as a motion for extension of time to
file objections, entered an Endorsed Order granting the motion [ECF No. 73] on January 30th,
giving Wise until February 13th to file objections. To date, no objections have been filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection
is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the

party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, or if the objections do not properly address
specific findings, the district court need only review the report and recommendation for “clear
error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. The Court has undertaken this review and finds no clear
error in the analysis and recommendations contained the Report.
It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 71] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED
and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

Defendant City of Lauderhill’s Bill of Costs [ECF No. 50] is GRANTED. City of
Lauderhill is awarded $1,091.60 in taxable costs;

(3)

Defendant City of Lauderhill’s Amended Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees and/or
Non-Taxable Costs [ECF No. 51] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
City of Lauderhill is awarded $11,122.13 in attorney’s fees;

(4)

Defendant City of Lauderhill’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and/or Non-Taxable Costs
[ECF No. 49] is DENIED AS MOOT; and

(5)

Plaintiff Rose Wise’s request for a stay of the above-listed motions pending disposition of her appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [ECF No.
59] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 13th day of March, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE