From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrews v. Marshall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
May 25, 2021
Case No: 2:16-cv-814-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. May. 25, 2021)

Opinion

Case No: 2:16-cv-814-SPC-MRM

05-25-2021

ANITA ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY BRANDON MARSHALL, SERGEANT ROBERT KIZZIRE, CORIZON HEALTH, INC. and CARMINE MARCENO, Defendants.


ORDER

Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink's availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. --------

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 172). Judge McCoy recommends granting and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 162) and granting Defendants' Renewed Motion to Enter Judgment (Doc. 163). Neither party timely objected, so the matter is ripe for review.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

After careful consideration and an independent review of the file, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R (Doc. 172) in full.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 172) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order.

(2) Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 162) is GRANTED and DENIED in part.

a. The Motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants Brandon Marshall, Robert Kizzire, and Sheriff Carmine Marceno, in his official capacity as Lee County Sherriff, are AWARDED $40 for expert witness fees.
b. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno.

c. The Motion is DENIED in part as to the request to tax mediation and appellate clerk fees.

d. The balance of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

e. While it appears they already did so, Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno can renew the Motion on or before June 1, 2021.

(3) Defendants' Renewed Motion to Enter Judgment (Doc. 163) is GRANTED.

a. Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno are AWARDED $9,000 as costs of the previous action.

b. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 25, 2021.

/s/ _________

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record


Summaries of

Andrews v. Marshall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
May 25, 2021
Case No: 2:16-cv-814-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. May. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Andrews v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:ANITA ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY BRANDON MARSHALL, SERGEANT ROBERT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

Date published: May 25, 2021

Citations

Case No: 2:16-cv-814-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. May. 25, 2021)