Hooks v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

Full title: JOHN F. HOOKS, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jan 4, 2016

Case No. 3:13-cv-891-J-34JBT (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 3:13-cv-891-J-34JBT

01-04-2016

JOHN F. HOOKS, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 168; Report), entered on November 23, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that Defendant's Motion for Award of Costs (Dkt. No. 153; Motion) be granted, in part, and denied, in part. See Report at 15. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed.

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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 168) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. Defendant's Motion for Award of Costs (Dkt. No. 153) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court determines that Defendant, as the prevailing party, is entitled to recoup costs in the amount of $12,037.96.

b. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.

3. The entry of an order directing the Clerk of the Court to tax costs in this amount is STAYED pending the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Dkt. No. 159).

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 4th day of January, 2016.

/s/_________

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge ja Copies to: The Honorable Joel B. Toomey
United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record