[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 07-10280 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 16, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-60068-CV-JEM
SCOTT HIRSCH,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC.,
a Florida not for profit corporation,
a.k.a. Nova Southeastern Health
Professions Division, College of
Dental Medicine,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 16, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
As the prevailing party in this action, Nova Southeastern University, Inc.
(Nova) appeals the district court’s denial of its request for attorneys’ fees under the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12205, and the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b). Nova contends the district court abused its discretion in
denying Nova’s motion for attorneys’ fees because: (1) Scott Hirsch litigated his
claims in bad faith, and (2) Hirsch’s claims were frivolous and unreasonable ab
initio.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs in this case and find
no abuse of discretion by the district court. We affirm for the reasons set forth in
the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned order of March 3, 2006.1
AFFIRMED.
1
The magistrate judge’s order only addresses Nova’s request for attorneys’ fees under
the Rehabilitation Act. The ADA’s provision for attorneys’ fees is nearly identical to the
Rehabilitation Act’s provision; accordingly, the magistrate judge’s analysis applies equally to
Nova’s request for attorneys’ fees under the ADA.