GALLIMORE
v.
CITY OF OPA LOCKA, FLORIDA
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.
Sharon Gallimore sued the City of Opa-Locka, and after the litigation concluded, the City moved to tax costs against Gallimore. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and the District Court adopted that recommendation without objection from the plaintiff.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the City's motion to tax costs in part and denying it in part. The Court awarded the City $1,868.75 in taxable costs, consisting of $1,781.00 in transcription and court reporter fees, $20.00 in subpoena service fees, and $67.75 in printing costs.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when a party files a proper, specific objection to a factual finding.
[2] When no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the…
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 intelligenceThe City of Opa-Locka sought to recover certain costs incurred during litigation against plaintiff Sharon Gallimore. The costs claimed included transc…
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 Taxable Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant City of Opa-Locka's Verified Motion to Tax Costs. (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 53). The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or to issue a Report and Recommendations regarding the Motion. (ECF No. 54). On October 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 61), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
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)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection" to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781,
784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Yet when a party has failed to object to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-CV-21230, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that Defendant be awarded a total of $1,868.75 in taxable costs, entered against Plaintiff, consisting of: (1) $1,781.00 in transcription and court reporter fees; (2) $20.00 in fees for service of a subpoena; and (3) $67.75 in printing costs. See generally R&R. This Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 61) is ADOPTED. Defendant's Verified Motion to Tax Costs (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant is awarded $1,868.75 in taxable costs.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of February, 2024.
K. M. Moore
K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record