Nunez v. City of Pompano Beach

S.D. Florida

Nunez v. City of Pompano Beach

DecidedJuly 15, 2021

Docket0:20-cv-62626

StatusUnknown

This text of Nunez v. City of Pompano Beach (Nunez v. City of Pompano Beach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nunez v. City of Pompano Beach, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-62626-CIV-DIMITROULEAS MIGUEL NUNEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, a municipal corporation authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Florida; and GREGORY P. HARRISON, in his official capacity as City Manager,

Defendants. _____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Gregory Harrison’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e-5(k) [DE 18], and Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow’s June 30, 2021 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 28]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 28] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 28] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 28] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions.

1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 28] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Defendant Gregory Harrison’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) [DE 18] is GRANTED; 3. Defendant Harrison is hereby authorized to file a motion requesting attorneys’ fees in the manner prescribed by Local Rule 7.3, which shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 15th day of July, 2021. f j (i 4 “4 ff % f ? J scene 7 a #4 v Paty d ‘4 ase □□ CA MAGIA AYN VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Hon. Lurana S. Snow

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-62626-CIV-DIMITROULEAS MIGUEL NUNEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, a municipal corporation authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Florida; and GREGORY P. HARRISON, in his official capacity as City Manager,

Defendants. _____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Gregory Harrison’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e-5(k) [DE 18], and Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow’s June 30, 2021 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 28]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 28] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 28] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 28] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions.

1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 28] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Defendant Gregory Harrison’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) [DE 18] is GRANTED; 3. Defendant Harrison is hereby authorized to file a motion requesting attorneys’ fees in the manner prescribed by Local Rule 7.3, which shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 15th day of July, 2021. f j (i 4 “4 ff % f ? J scene 7 a #4 v Paty d ‘4 ase □□ CA MAGIA AYN VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Hon. Lurana S. Snow

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nunez v. City of Pompano Beach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-city-of-pompano-beach-flsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack