ZOBEL
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
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 accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motions for costs.
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the defendant's motion to tax costs. No objections were filed by either party. The plaintiff also filed a mo…
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs (the “Report”) [ECF No. 47], filed on March 24, 2025. On March 13, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Tax Costs (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 42]. [fn 1] On March 24, 2025, following referral, Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 47 p. 1]. Objections to the Report were due on April 7, 2025 [ECF No. 47 p. 2], but to date, no party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so.
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court
CASE NO. 22-81083-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 47 p. 1], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 47] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 42] and Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 45] are GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff is entitled to recover taxable costs in the amount of $402 [ECF No. 47 p. 1].
4. This case shall remain CLOSED.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 11th day of April 2025.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
[fn 1]: Plaintiff also filed a separate "Motion” for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 45] after Magistrate Judge Reinhart directed Plaintiff to file a Bill of Costs. Though unclear why Plaintiff filed the Bill of Costs as a separate motion, the Court considers it in conjunction with the Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 42].
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)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)