Sheets v. Jimenez

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ANDREW BRYANT SHEETS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-704-SPC-KCD

KELVIN JIMENEZ, DYLAN J. RENZ, and CITY OF PUNTA GORDA,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 54) and United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 61). Judge Dudek recommends denying the motion. No party objected, so 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, in whole or in part,” a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the report and recommendation de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain”; (38) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. It accepts and adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Judge Dudek’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 54) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 21, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record