Alexander v. School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida
Filing
117
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 115 Report and Recommendations on 103 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 103 Motion for Attorney Fees; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 115 Report and Recommendations on 103 Motion for Attorney Fees, filed by School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 1/10/2022. See attached document for full details. (ls)
Case 9:20-cv-80336-AMC Document 117 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2022 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 20-80336-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
DR. SHERNETTE ALEXANDER,
v.
Plaintiff,
SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
Non-Taxable Costs (“Motion for Fees and Non-Taxable Costs”) be denied [ECF No. 115]. On
September 12, 2021, the Court referred Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to
Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 107 (referring
ECF No. 103)]. On December 13, 2021, Judge Reinhart issued the instant Report (“R&R”),
recommending that the Motion for Fees and Non-Taxable Costs be denied [ECF No. 115]. The
R&R states that the parties shall file any objections within fourteen days of the date of service of
the R&R [ECF No. 115 pp. 7–8]. No objections have been filed.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in this case and is
otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir.
2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be correct to the
extent it determines, for purposes of assessing fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5k, that Plaintiff’s
Case 9:20-cv-80336-AMC Document 117 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2022 Page 2 of 2
CASE NO. 20-80336-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
claims under Title VII were not entirely frivolous or groundless. The Court therefore agrees,
consistent with the conclusion in the R&R, that Defendant’s Bill of Taxable Costs should be
DENIED, but the Court REJECTS the R&R to the extent it draws other conclusions or
makes any other suggestions about the nature of Plaintiff’s evidence or Defendant’s actions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
The R&R [ECF No. 115] is ACCEPTED to the limited extent noted in this
Order.
2.
Defendant’s Bill of Taxable Costs [ECF Nos. 103] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 10th day of January
2022.
cc:
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
counsel of record
2
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?