Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC et al v. State of Illinois et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LOWERY WILKINSON LOWERY, LLC
ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 25-CV-22-RAW
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Magistrate Judge D. Edward Snow’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
No. 233] on the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees requested by Defendant’s State of Illinois
and St. Clair County, Illinois. The court referred this matter to the Magistrate Judge for a Report
and Recommendation following the issuance of the Omnibus Order that [Dkt. No. 181], in
pertinent part, awarded the Defendants, State of Illinois and St. Clair County, Illinois, attorney’s
fees as a sanction against the Plaintiffs for severe and repeated misconduct. Magistrate Judge Snow
held a hearing on the reasonableness of fees on October 22, 2025 [Dkt. No. 224]. As noted in the
minutes from the hearing, the Plaintiffs and their attorneys, who are one and the same, entirely
failed to appear. 	The Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report [Dkt. No. 237].
Because the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation is well supported by the evidence and
prevailing legal authority, the Plaintiffs' objection is OVERRULED, and the Report and
Recommendation is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and Order.
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 240 Filed in ED/OK on 12/31/25 Page 1 of 3

2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court must conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation if a party objects to the magistrate’s findings. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Northington
v. Marin, 102 F.3d 1564, 1570 (10th Cir.1996) (“De novo review is required after a party makes
timely written objections to a magistrate's report. The district court must consider the actual
testimony or other evidence in the record and not merely review the magistrate's report and
recommendations.”) 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.Civ.P. 72(b). De
novo review requires the district court to consider relevant evidence of record and not merely
review the magistrate judge's recommendation. Id.
A party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a specific objection is
made. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). The
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
being made. The district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battle
v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir.1987). Moreover, to the extent the objections amount
to no more than general or conclusory objections to the report and recommendation, without
specifying to which issues in the report objection is made, or where the objections are repetitive
of the arguments already made to the magistrate-judge, a de novo review is unwarranted. Id.
“Instead, the report and recommendation is reviewed by the district judge for clear error.” Id.
(citing Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly–Rate Employees Pension Plan, 806 F.Supp. 380, 382
(W.D.N.Y.1992) (“It is improper for an objecting party to ... submit[ ] papers to a district court
which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 240 Filed in ED/OK on 12/31/25 Page 2 of 3

3
papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at
the apple’ when they file objections to a R & R.”)).
ANALYSIS
Here, the Plaintiffs filed a thirty-page response to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
No. 237] that, in addition to violating the ten-page limit for such responses set by the Magistrate
Judge, entirely fails to raise any specific objection to the reasonableness of the fees as determined
by Magistrate Judge Snow. Instead, the Plaintiffs rehash arguments already submitted to this court,
along with unsubstantiated accusations of antisemitism. [Dkt. No. 237 at 20]. Plaintiffs object, in
broad terms, to the imposition of sanctions. However, this question was not before the Magistrate
Judge. The District Judge had already decided to impose sanctions. Magistrate Judge Snow’s
Report and Recommendation pertains only to the reasonableness of fees. The Plaintiffs raise no
objections to his reasonableness determination. Accordingly, because no specific objections were
filed, the court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.
Upon clear error review, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation is
well supported by the evidence and prevailing legal authority, and it is hereby AFFIRMED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 31 st day of December, 2025.
______________________________________
THE HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 240 Filed in ED/OK on 12/31/25 Page 3 of 3