ZDUNCYK
v.
SPRINGBIG, 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 court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiff's motion for costs.
Following a judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed a motion for taxable costs. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion and award…
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 Objections To Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
[ECF No. 35]. Subsequent to the Court’s entry of final judgment, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Bill of Costs (the “Motion”), seeking $445.00 in taxable costs [ECF No. 36 p. 3]. This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 37]. On May 25, 2023, Judge Reinhart issued a report, recommending that the Motion be granted, and that Plaintiff be awarded $445.00 in taxable costs [ECF No. 38 p. 2]. Objections to the Report were due on June 8, 2023 [ECF No. 38 p. 2]. Defendant filed of Notice of No Objection to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 39]. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 38 p. 2].
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 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. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion [ECF No. 36] should be GRANTED and that Plaintiff should be awarded taxable costs in the amount of $445.00, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 38 p. 1].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 38] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff is entitled to recover taxable costs in the amount of $445.00.
CASE NO. 22-81350-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 13th day of June 2023. Cy. M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
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)