CUNNINGHAM
v.
SANOFI S.A.
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 for the Middle District of Florida adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation denying the plaintiff's motion for review of the clerk's action on a bill of costs in a case against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and related defendants.
The District Court adopted the magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation and denied the plaintiff's motion for review of the clerk's action on the bill of costs.
“After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review a district court applies to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Cunningham filed a motion for review of the clerk's action regarding a bill of costs. A United States Magistrate Judge, Anthony E. Porcelli,…
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 Bill Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the amended report and recommendation of Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on November 25, 2024. (Doc. 59). Judge Porcelli recommends that “Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Clerk's Action on Bill of Costs” (Doc. 54) be denied. No objection to the report and recommendation has been filed, and the time to object has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F. 2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Porcelli's amended report and recommendation, the Court adopts the amended report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli's detailed and wellreasoned factual findings and legal conclusions.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Judge Porcelli's amended report and recommendation (Doc. 59) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
(2) "Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Clerk's Action on Bill of Costs" (Doc. 54) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of December, 2024.
Thp.Bl TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983)