Miller v. The City of Fort Myers

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DERETHA MILLER, TAMBITHA BLANKS and WILLIE BLANKS, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-195-FtM-38NPM

THE CITY OF FORT MYERS, RANDALL P. HENDERSON, JR. and SAEED KAZEMI,

Defendants. / ORDER1 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 137). The R&R considers Plaintiffs’ Motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 130), Defendants’ response in opposition (Doc. 133), and Plaintiffs’ reply (Doc. 136). Judge Mizell recommends denying the Motion. Plaintiffs timely objected (Doc. 138), to which Defendants responded (Doc. 141). Defendants also filed alternative objections (Doc. 139) if the R&R is not approved, and Plaintiffs responded (Doc. 140). The 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 R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 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 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). There are no factual objections. Plaintiffs disagree with the R&R’s legal conclusions. The Court, however, does not. After careful, de novo review of the file and applicable law, the Court agrees with the R&R’s analysis in full. To avoid simply restating Judge Mizell’s well-put reasoning or block quoting ten-plus pages, the Court concludes it is sufficient to let the R&R stand on its own. So the Court accepts, adopts, and incorporates the R&R’s legal conclusions by reference here. Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled. Defendants’ alternative objections are denied as moot. And the Motion is denied for the reasons explained in the R&R.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 137) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. (2) Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. 138) are OVERRULED. (3) Defendants’ alternative objections (Doc. 139) are OVERRULED as moot. (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Costs of Litigation Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e) (Doc. 130) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 29th day of September, 2020.

Lhe hlatrrthe 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record