FRANCISCO
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY
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 district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the defendant Pinellas County's motion for taxation of costs, awarding $5,307.15 in costs. The court corrected a clerical error identifying the movant and adopted the recommendation in part.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in part, granting Pinellas County's motion for taxation of costs in the amount of $5,307.15, and corrected the clerical error identifying Pinellas County as the movant rather than the plaintiff.
“After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Francisco brought a civil action against Pinellas County. Defendant Pinellas County filed a motion for taxation of costs. A magistrate judge…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting the defendant's motion for taxation of costs (Doc. 55). The deadline to object to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation has passed, and the Defendant objects in part, based on a clerical error. (Doc. 56). Considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in part.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an
objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
I adopt the Report and Recommendation in part. The Defendant objects to the Report listing the Plaintiff as the movant, as opposed to the Defendant. (Doc. 56). The Report should list Defendant Pinellas County as the movant and recipient of costs. In all other respects, I adopt the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55) is ADOPTED in part.
2. The Defendant's motion for taxation of costs (Doc. 53) is GRANTED.
3. The Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $5,307.15.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 4, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)