Fleuranville v. Miami-Dade County et al

Filing 38

ORDER Adopting 37 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 1/6/2025. See attached document for full details. (dp01)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JEFF FLEURANVILLE,

Case No. 1:23-cv-21797-KMM

Plaintiff,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
et. al.,
Defendants.

/

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Roger Acosta’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion
for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1998 (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (ECF No. 23). The Motion
was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) who
issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 37), recommending that the Motion be
GRANTED. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The
matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
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)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).
The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific
objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,
784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general
objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected
to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on

the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No.
14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015)).
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis found Defendants are entitled to attorney's
fees incurred from defending against Plaintiff’s federal claims. See generally R&R. Judge Louis
found that Defendants were the prevailing parties and noted that Plaintiffs' federal claims were
dismissed with prejudice upon because “the arrests and subsequent prosecution were supported by
probable cause.” R&R at 2. In the R&R, Judge Louis thoroughly considered the Sullivan factors,
including “(1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; (2) whether the defendant
offered to settle; and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a full-blown
trial on the merits.” See generally id. (quoting Sullivan v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 773 F.2d
1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985)). Judge Louis ultimately found that the Sullivan factors favor a finding
that Plaintiffs' federal claims were “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Id. This
Court finds no clear error with Judge Louis’ conclusions.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions
of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 37) is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees
Pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1988 (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
6th day of January 2025.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____

c: All counsel of record

K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2