MCWILLIAMS
v.
ECN (US) HOLDINGS CORP.
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 regarding the taxation of costs.
Plaintiff sought to tax costs after a partial final judgment was entered in his favor. The Magistrate Judge recommended awarding a portion of the requ…
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 Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
On June 20, 2023, the Court accepted Plaintiff’s Notice of Acceptance of Defendants’ Offer of Judgment [ECF No. 52] and granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment Against all Defendants as to Counts I–III of the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 53] [See ECF No. 67].
On June 20, 2023, the Court entered partial final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against all Defendants as to Counts I–III of the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 68]. Subsequent to the Court’s entry of partial final judgment, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Tax Costs (the “Motion”), seeking $1,219.19 in taxable costs [ECF No. 76 p. 3]. This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 77]. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion on August 3, 2023 [ECF No. 85]. Plaintiff filed a Reply [ECF No. 86].
On August 11, 2023, Judge Reinhart issued the Report, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that Plaintiff be awarded $784.19 in total taxable costs [ECF No. 88 p. 9]. Objections to the Report were due on August 16, 2023 [ECF No. 88 p. 9]. Plaintiff filed Notice of Non-Objection to the Report, stating that while he did not agree with some of the findings in the Report, he did not intend to file objections [ECF No. 90 p.1]. Defendants
have not filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 88 p. 9]. 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.
Upon review, the Court finds the comprehensive Report to be well reasoned and correct. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 88] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 76] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as recommended 3. Plaintiff is entitled to recover taxable costs in the amount of $784.19 [ECF No. 88 p. 9]. CASE NO. 23-80038-CIV-CANNOW/Reinhart
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 30th day of August 2023.
AILEE Z CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record