Multiflex Systems, Inc. v. Reed Transport Services, Inc. et al, No. 8:2009cv02071 - Document 19 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER adopting United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18). The Motion for Final Judgment as to Defendant, XP Transportation, Inc. (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in PART as to the entry of final judgment and D ENIED in PART as it relates to the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. The CLERK is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, XP Transportation, Inc. in the amount of $108,161.42, plus interest accruing at the rate of eleven (11%) percent per annum. Plaintiff may file a separate motion for attorneys' fees and costs within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/23/2010. (ACD)

Download PDF
Multiflex Systems, Inc. v. Reed Transport Services, Inc. et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MULTIFLEX SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 8:09-cv-2071-T-33AEP REED TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., XP TRANSPORTATION, INC. and YAMIR VALDES, Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Recommendation (Doc. Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and 18), entered on March 3, 2010, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment as to Defendant, XP Transportation, Inc. (Doc. 15) be GRANTED in PART as it relates to the entry of final judgment and DENIED in PART as it relates to the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs. As of this date, there are no filed objections to the report and recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed. 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. 636(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), Dockets.Justia.com cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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. 636(b)(1)(c). 28 U.S.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); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table). 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, and the recommendation of the magistrate judge regarding the motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: (1) United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) The Motion for Final Judgment as to Defendant, XP Transportation, Inc. (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in PART as to the entry of final judgment and DENIED in PART as it relates to the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs. -2- (3) The CLERK is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, XP Transportation, Inc. in the amount of $108,161.42, plus interest accruing at the rate of eleven (11%) percent per annum. (4) Plaintiff may file a separate motion for attorneys’ fees and costs within fourteen days of the date of this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 23rd day of March 2010. Copies to: All Parties and Counsel of Record -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.