GUERRERO
v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.
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 Report and Recommendation regarding defendants' motion to tax costs in a case between Guerrero and BP Exploration & Production, Inc. The court granted the motion in part, directing the clerk to tax costs in the amount of $23,845.70 against the plaintiff.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the defendants' motion to tax costs in part and denying it in part. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for costs of $23,845.70 against the plaintiff.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a timely objection is made.
[2] A district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of a specific objection to a magistrate judge's report.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is a civil case (No. 8:20-cv-263) between plaintiff Guerrero and defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company. T…
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
and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to tax costs and directing the Clerk to tax costs in the amount of $23,845.70. (Doc. 228). The deadline to object to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation has passed without any party lodging an objection. Considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
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.
1
12030
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); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, I adopt the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 228) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. The Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 224) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. The Clerk is directed to enter for the defendants and against the plaintiff a judgment for costs of $23,845.70.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 7, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)