Robinson v. Herring et al

Filing 170

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Adopting 166 Report and Recommendations GRANTING 161 Motion for Reimbursement, Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 8/27/2024. See attached document for full details. (cqs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON
CHESTER LEE ROBINSON,
v.

Plaintiff,

QUANCIA HERRING, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 166]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Reimbursement of Pro Bono
Litigation Expenses (the “Report”) [ECF No. 166], filed on August 1, 2024. On July 16, 2024,
Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion for Reimbursement of Pro Bono Litigation Expenses (the
“Motion”). [ECF No. 161]. On August 1, 2024, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report
recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 166 p. 2]. Objections to the Report were due
on August 15, 2024 [ECF No. 166 p. 3]. On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice
advising the Court that neither party intended to file any objections to the Report [ECF No. 168
p. 1]. The time to file objections has now expired. [ECF No. 166 p. 3].
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file
specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation
to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court
reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject,

CASE NO. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON
or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report,
the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the
record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston
v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For
the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 166 pp. 1–2], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 166] is ACCEPTED.

2.

The Motion [ECF No. 161] is GRANTED.

3.

This case shall remain CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 27th day of August
2024.
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

counsel of record

2