KOREY SHORT
v.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the Defendant's motion for entitlement to costs.
[1] When no party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the prescribed time period, a district court may review unobjected-to factual and legal con…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of the Defendant's Motion for Entitlement to Costs. No objections were fil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Appeal For Unobjected Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 39; Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 2, 2025. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's Motion for Entitlement to Costs and Associated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 34; Motion) be denied. See Report at 21. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed.
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). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.¹ As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.").
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
¹ The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 21-22.
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 39) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Defendant's Motion for Entitlement to Costs and Associated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 34) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of December, 2025.
Mania Morules Howand
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record Pro Se Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)