govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_23-cv-21797-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
Case No. 1:23-cv-21797-KMM 
 
JEFF FLEURANVILLE,  
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al.,  
 
Defendants. 
                                                                               / 
 
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants Officers Wislyn Joseph,1 Gregory 
Cheever, Ernesto Miranda, and Lashonya Leonard’s (collectively, “Defendants” 2) Verified 
Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“Mot.” or “Motion”).  (ECF No. 39).  The Motion was referred to 
Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 “to take all necessary and proper 
action as required by law and/or to issue a Report and Recommendation.”  (ECF No. 40).  
Magistrate Judge Louis issued a n Amended Report and Recommendation on February 3, 2026, 
recommending that the Motion be granted in as much as it seeks fees incurred at the trial level, but 
denied in as much as it seeks fees incurred on appeal.  See generally (ECF No. 4 4) (“Amended 
R&R”). 
 
1 The Court notes that the case caption and Amended R&R each refer to this Defendant as “Joseph 
Wislin,” but the Court uses “Wislyn Joseph” here to be consistent with the Motion. 
2 Miami-Dade County was dropped as a Defendant between Plaintiff’s original Complaint and the 
Amended Complaint.  See (ECF Nos. 1, 10).  Darlene Cordero was never served.  (ECF No. 41) 
at 7 n.3.   
Case 1:23-cv-21797-KMM   Document 45   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2026   Page 1 of 3
2 
 
 No objections were filed to Magistrate Judge Louis’s original Report and Recommendation, at 
(ECF No. 42), before the time to do so passed. 3  The matter is now ripe for review.  As set forth 
below, the Court ADOPTS the Amended R&R. 
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).  
The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.”  Fed. 
R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).  A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific 
objection” to a factual finding contained in the report.  Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 
784 (11th Cir. 2006).  “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general  
objection to the report” to warrant de novo review.  Id.  Yet when a party has not properly objected 
to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”  See Keaton v. United States , No. 
14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill , 
No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge 
“evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” 
(citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))). 
In her Amended Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends  that:  
(1) Defendants’ attorney’s fee award should be calculated at the hourly rate of $350.00; (2) 
Defendants should be awarded the full amount of time incurred in securing the favorable outcome 
at the district court level, for a total of 39.75 hours; (3) Defendants should not be awarded the 22 
 
3 The original Report and Recommendation was vacated.  (ECF No. 43).  The amended R&R was 
issued only to reflect that Defendant Darlene Cordero was never served and to clarify that the 
Motion was not brought on her behalf.  R&R at 1 n.1. Because no substantive changes were made 
in the amended R&R, the objections period was not reopened.  Id. at 7 n.5.  
Case 1:23-cv-21797-KMM   Document 45   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2026   Page 2 of 3
3 
 
hours of fees incurred defending against Plaintiff’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit; and (4) 
Defendants should be awarded $13,912.50 in reasonable attorney’s fees.  See generally Amended 
R&R.  This Court agrees. 
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the Amended R&R, the pertinent 
portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED 
AND ADJUDGED that the Amended R&R (ECF No. 44) is ADOPTED.  Defendants’ Motion 
(ECF No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.  Defendants are awarded 
$13,912.50 in attorney’s fees. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ______ day of  February, 
2026. 
 
K. MICHAEL MOORE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
c: All counsel of record 
 
3rd
Case 1:23-cv-21797-KMM   Document 45   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2026   Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight