Opinion
19-61324-CIV-DIMITROULEAS
06-06-2022
SCOTT THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. BROWARD COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE, Defendant.
ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS FEES FOR OBEIDY AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS, United States District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Scott Thomas' Moton to Set Amount of Attorneys' Fees for Obeidy and Associates, P.A. [DE 121] and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow (the “Report”) [DE 146], dated May 23, 2022. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 146], Defendant's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [DE 147], and the record herein. Judge Snow held a hearing was held on the Motion on May 18, 2022. See [DE 143]. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 Fed.Appx. at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 Fed.Appx. at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 Fed.Appx. at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. [DE 147]. Having carefully considered Defendant's Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with Judge Snow that the Court is not precluded from considering the Plaintiff's fee motion on the merits, despite Plaintiff's admitted failure to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7.3, which the Court does not condone. As Judge Snow pointed out at the May 18, 2022 hearing, the requirement that the parties attempt to resolve the fee issues by agreement is primarily for the benefit of the Court, and it is within this Court's discretion to consider a fee motion where the proponent has not strictly complied with the provisions of Local Rule 7.3. Furthermore, in this case, Defendant's counsel was asked whether Defendant could have requested an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion as filed to cure a prejudice to Defendant from Plaintiff's non-compliance with Local Rule 7.3, and Defendant's counsel responded affirmatively. See [DE 146] at p. 4; [DE 147] at pp. 1-2. Defendant's objections to not otherwise address the merits of Judge Snow's recommendation regarding the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded. See [DE 147].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 146] is hereby APPROVED;
2. Defendants's Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 147] are OVERRULED;
3. Plaintiff Scott Thomas' Moton to Set Amount of Attorneys' Fees for Obeidy and Associates, P.A. [DE 121] is hereby GRANTED in part;
4. Plaintiff is hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $52,500.00.
DONE AND ORDERED.