Opinion
22-81350-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
06-13-2023
JENIFER ZDUNCYK, Plaintiff, v. SPRINGBIG, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ECF NO. 38]
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Reinhart's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Costs (the “Report”) [ECF No. 38], filed on May 25, 2023.
***
On April 18, 2023, the Court issued an Order on Plaintiff's Acceptance of Offer of Judgment [ECF No. 34], accepting Plaintiff's Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment [ECF No. 33]. On April 19, 2023, the Court entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiff [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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 Fed.Appx. 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.
DONE AND ORDERED