Doe v. Haslam et al (TWP1)
Filing
75
ORDER granting 66 Motion for Attorney Fees; accepting in whole 72 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the R&R, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling, that Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees (doc. 66 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is AWARDED $17,860.00 in attorney's fees and $803.15 in costs. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 11/01/2019. (KMK)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE DIVISION
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director of the
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, in his
official capacity,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:17-CV-217
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees [doc. 66]. This
matter has been fully briefed [docs. 66, 70, 71], and the undersigned previously referred
the matter to United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton [doc. 69]. Judge Guyton
issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) [doc. 72], recommending that Plaintiff’s
motion for attorney fees 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(b).
After a careful review of this matter, the court is in complete agreement with the
magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees should be granted.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It is ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the R&R, which the
Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling, that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees [doc.
66] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is AWARDED $17,860.00 in attorney’s fees and $803.15 in
costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas W. Phillips
SENIOR 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?