Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. v. Vasudeva

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided May 16, 2022·No. 8:21-cv-01474·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

FRESENIUS VASCULAR CARE, INC. and NATIONAL MEDICAL CARE, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 8:21-cv-1474-VMC-JSS

INDI VASUDEVA and TAMPA RENAL PHYSICIANS, P.L.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 26), filed on April 28, 2022, recommending that Plaintiff National Medical Care, Inc.’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 24) be granted. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants the Motion. Discussion 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). 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

recommendation. 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. S. 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). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 26) is ACCEPTED

and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff National Medical Care, Inc.’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 24) is GRANTED. National Medical Care is directed to submit a supplemental motion in accordance with Middle District of Florida Local Rule 7.01(c). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 16th day of May, 2021.

VIR TA M. HERNANDEZ'COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. v. Vasudeva, (M.D. Fla. 2022).

Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. v. Vasudeva (Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. v. Vasudeva) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marina Cooper-Houston v. Southern Railway Company
37 F.3d 603 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)
Castro Bobadilla v. Reno
826 F. Supp. 1428 (S.D. Florida, 1993)
Garvey v. Vaughn
993 F.2d 776 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)