UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81766-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

ANDREW HORACE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ADDICTION RECOVERY INSTITUTE

OF AMERICA (ARIA),

Defendant.

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WITH CLARIFICATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 42]. Upon review, the 

Report is ACCEPTED [ECF No. 42] with the clarification referenced below. Defendant’s Motion 

for Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 36] is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint in this matter, alleging race 

and sex discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act [ECF No. 19]. Defendant

thereafter moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 20]. The Court granted 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, concluding that the Amended Complaint lacked factual 

allegations to plausibly state a claim for race discrimination [ECF No 31 p. 4], and further 

concluding that Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims warranted dismissal for lack of exhaustion

[ECF No. 31 p. 5]. After the Court’s ruling, Defendant filed a Motion for Entitlement to Attorneys’ 

Fees, arguing that it is entitled to fee-shifting under Title VII because Plaintiff’s claims were 

frivolous [ECF No. 36]. 

Case 9:22-cv-81766-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 1 of 3
 CASE NO. 22-81766-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2 

On October 17, 2023, following referral, Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a Report 

recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 42]. No party has 

filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file 

specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation 

to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court 

reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, 

the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the 

record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence 

of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston 

v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 42] is ACCEPTED, although the 

Court does not adopt any suggestion in the Report that Plaintiff plausibly stated a 

claim for race discrimination, for the reasons stated in the Court’s Order Granting 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 31]. 

2. Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 36] is DENIED. 

Case 9:22-cv-81766-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 2 of 3
 CASE NO. 22-81766-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

3

3. The case remains CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 17th day of November

2023.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81766-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 3 of 3