Stooksbury v. Ross et al

Filing 1456

ORDER that the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R 1442 , and hereby GRANTS the motion 1416 . The receiver is permitted to disburse the $6,409.50 requested as compensation for services and reimbursement for expenses in October 2014. The $108,893.50 in professional fees and $541.91 in expenses incurred by Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter, PLLC are approved. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 1/27/15. (ABF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ROBERT T. STOOKSBURY, JR., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL L. ROSS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 3:09-CV-498-TAV-HBG ORDER This civil matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on January 8, 2015 [Doc. 1442]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommends that the receiver’s Eighth Quarterly Report and Twenty-Ninth Interim Application to Pay Receiver’s Fees and Approve Receiver’s Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [Doc. 1416] be granted. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. After a careful review of the matter, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Guyton’s recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 1442], and hereby GRANTS the motion [Doc. 1416]. The receiver is permitted to disburse the $6,409.50 requested as compensation for services and reimbursement for expenses in October 2014. The $108,893.50 in professional fees and $541.91 in expenses incurred by Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter, PLLC are approved. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas A. Varlan CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?