BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Custom Diesel Express, Inc. et al
ORDER accepting and adopting 26 Report and Recommendations; granting 24 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 6/27/17. (aws, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A.,
CUSTOM DIESEL EXPRESS, INC. and
Case No. 2:16-CV-60
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker
On May 15, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker filed a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 26) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Corker recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for
attorneys’ fees be granted and that plaintiff be awarded a judgment for $23,395.00 in attorneys’
fees and $485.00 in costs.
Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Corker’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record in this matter, and it agrees
with Magistrate Judge Corker’s well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS
and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Corker’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s
Magistrate Judge Corker specifically advised the parties that they had 14 days in which to
object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive their right to
appeal. (Doc. 26 at 3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
148-51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district
court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other
standard, when neither party objects to those findings”).
motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 24) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff SHALL be awarded
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $23,395.00 and $485.00 in costs.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?