Doe v. Gwyn
Filing
74
ORDER: 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 Plaintiffs Motion forAttorneys Fees [Doc. 65] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is AWARDED $58,410.00 in attorneys fees. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 12/23/20. (ABF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK GWYN,
in his official capacity as
Director of the Tennessee Bureau
of Investigation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
3:17-CV-504
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [Doc. 65].
This matter has been fully briefed [Docs. 65, 66, 71], and the undersigned previously
referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton [Doc. 70]. Judge
Guyton issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. 73], recommending that
Plaintiff’s motion 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’s 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
Case 3:17-cv-00504-TAV-HBG Document 74 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1667
Attorney’s Fees [Doc. 65] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is AWARDED $58,410.00 in
attorney’s fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Case 3:17-cv-00504-TAV-HBG Document 74 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1668
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?