Opinion
Case No: 2:10-cv-680-FtM-38CM
10-28-2014
MARGARET GADSBY, FRANK MURPHY, JOHN GARDINER, SR. , RICHARD J. BRUSSARD, JR. , HOSPITAL BOUTIQUES, INC., JAMES TAYLOR, JODY TAYLOR, JEROME KUTCHE, JAMES RIES, DONALD OINONEN and CHARLES FEMMINELLA, JR. , Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA and GOLF ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants.
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
This matter comes before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #126) filed on October 8, 2014. Judge Mirando recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Renewed Motion for Costs and Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #121). (Doc. #126 at 1). The Parties have not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of Judge Mirando's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #126).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #126) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Defendants' Renewed Motion for Costs and Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #121) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
3. Defendants' request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.
4. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, and against Plaintiffs, for taxable costs in the amount of $7,122.40.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, this 28th day of October, 2014.
/s/_________
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record