UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-62138-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

SYDNEY MARIE KEEFE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

BRITT’s BOW WOW BOUTIQUE, INC., 

and MERRI COLVARD,

Defendants. 

____________________________________/ 

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING 

OBJECTIONS; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COSTS; 

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Sydney Marie Keefe (“Plaintiff”)’s 

Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 130]; Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees [DE 145]; the 

March 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch, 

recommending that Plaintiff be awarded $12,575.63 in costs and $78,337.50 in attorney’s fees. 

[DE 163]; and Defendants Britt’s Bow Wow Boutique and Merri Colvard (collectively 

“Defendants”)’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 164].1 The Court has carefully 

considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United 

States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the 

portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the 

specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff did not timely file any Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2024 Page 1 of 3
(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be 

sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 

(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific 

objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de 

novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 

783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x 

at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendants’

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 164]. Having carefully 

considered the Defendants’ Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees 

with the Magistrate’s analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs of the 

court filing fee, service of process fees, and copying costs in the total amount of $12,575.63. See

[DE 163]. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate’s analysis and conclusion that a reasonable 

hourly rate for Plaintiff’s counsel’s work in this case is $375 per hour and that that 208.9 hours 

adequately compensates Plaintiff’s counsel for the hours reasonably spent for attorney work in 

this case. See [DE 163].

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 163] is hereby APPROVED;

2. Defendants’ Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 164] are hereby 

OVERRULED; 

3. Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 130] is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND 

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2024 Page 2 of 3
DENIED IN PART; 

4. Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees [DE 145] is hereby GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;

5. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $12,575.63 in costs and $78,337.50 in attorney’s fees.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, on 

this 26th day of March, 2024.

Copies furnished to: 

Counsel of record

Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2024 Page 3 of 3