to § 501.2105, Florida Statutes (2009), because Goble did not discuss any of the factors that may justify an award of attorneys’ fees or demonstrate that his attorneys expended any meaningful time defending BCS’s FDUTPA claim. (Doc. No. 165 at 6.) Goble objected to the Magistrate’s finding by reprinting nearly verbatim the arguments made in his Motion for Attorneys’ Fees which the Magistrate rejected in the Report and Recommendation. (Compare Doc. No. 155 at 5-6, with Doc. No. 165 at 10-11.) By merely reprinting verbatim the arguments made in his Motion for Attor neys’ Fees, Goble has failed to “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. at 785 (<HOLDING>). Goble’s actions are akin to lodging a general
holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo holding in the criminal context that a district courts obligation to make a de novo determination with respect to the portions of a magistrate judges report and recommendation to which objections are made did not require a de novo hearing holding that this court is not bound by the conclusions of law reached by the trial court and the applicable standard of review for such issues is de novo holding that merely reciting language from a previous order of the court or failing to set forth the applicable law is not a specific objection to anything in the report and recommendation that would trigger de novo review by the district court