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)

Download PDF
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?