Thompson v. Regions Security Services, Inc.

S.D. Florida

Thompson v. Regions Security Services, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided March 20, 2025·No. 0:20-cv-62152·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-62152-CIV-DIMITROULEAS DAVID THOMPSON, Magistrate Judge Birch Plaintiff, vs.

REGIONS SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for a Supplemental Award of Attorney’s Fees [DE 87] and the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch on March 4, 2025 (the “Report”) [DE 91]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 91] 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 91] 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 91] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees should be denied without prejudice to be refiled, if appropriate, after the appeal is resolved for the reasons articulated in the Report.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 91] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for a Supplemental Award of Attorney’s Fees [DE 87] is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling the motion, if appropriate, after the appeal is resolved. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, on this 20th day of March, 2025.

fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af CA xe KN VIGVAML-] VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch

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. 20-62152-CIV-DIMITROULEAS DAVID THOMPSON, Magistrate Judge Birch Plaintiff, vs.

REGIONS SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for a Supplemental Award of Attorney’s Fees [DE 87] and the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch on March 4, 2025 (the “Report”) [DE 91]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 91] 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 91] 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 91] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees should be denied without prejudice to be refiled, if appropriate, after the appeal is resolved for the reasons articulated in the Report.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 91] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for a Supplemental Award of Attorney’s Fees [DE 87] is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling the motion, if appropriate, after the appeal is resolved. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, on this 20th day of March, 2025.

fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af CA xe KN VIGVAML-] VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch

Thompson v. Regions Security Services, Inc., (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Thompson v. Regions Security Services, Inc. (Thompson v. Regions Security Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related