Reliabill Solutions, LLC v. MILESTONE DETOX, LLC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION The R&R [ECF No. 25 ] is ADOPTED in full. The Supplemental Motion for Damages and Attorney's Fees and Costs [ECF No. 21 ] is GRANTED in part. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 9/9/2021. See attached document for full details. (jbs)
Case 0:20-cv-60890-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2021 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-60890-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt
RELIABILL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
MILESTONE DETOX, LLC,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
The Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion for Damages and Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the
“Motion”) [ECF No. 21], which we referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. On August 25,
2021, Judge Hunt issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 25], in which he
recommended that the Motion be granted in part and that the Plaintiff be awarded $33,199.67 for
amounts owed, a liquidated and termination fee of $57,233.16, late fees of $2,394.73, attorney’s fees
of $17,922.35, and costs of $544.79 for a total award of $111,294.70, see id. 9–10. Judge Hunt also
warned as follows:
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above
findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure
to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based
on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and
Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
R&R at 10. As of this writing, no party has filed objections to the R&R, and the deadline to do so has
passed. See generally Docket.
Case 0:20-cv-60890-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2021 Page 2 of 3
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been objected to, district courts must review that
disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “the court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule
72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress’ intent
was to require a de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not when neither
party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended
to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or
any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to
object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these
findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404,
410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and can find no clear error in it. The R&R properly
calculates the amounts owed and the liquidated damages, properly computes litigation costs, and
properly compensates the Plaintiff’s counsel, at a reasonable rate, for work done on this case.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:
1. The R&R [ECF No. 25] is ADOPTED in full.
2. The Supplemental Motion for Damages and Attorney’s Fees and Costs [ECF No. 21]
is GRANTED in part. The Plaintiff shall be awarded $33,199.67 for amounts owed,
a liquidated and termination fee of $57,233.16, late fees of $2,394.73, attorney’s fees
of $17,922.35, and costs of $544.79 for a total award of $111,294.70, for which sum
execution shall now issue.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 9th day of September 2021.
Case 0:20-cv-60890-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2021 Page 3 of 3
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
counsel of record
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?