Opinion
20-61815-CIV-CANN/Hunt
02-06-2023
BAER'S FURNITURE CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ECF NO. 111]
AILEEN M. CANNON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Hunt's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs (the “Report”) [ECF No. 111], filed on January 17, 2023.
***
On June 22, 2022, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts [ECF No. 94]. On June 23, 2022, the Court entered final judgment in favor of Defendant [ECF No. 95]. Subsequent to the Court's entry of final judgment, Defendant filed the Motion to Tax Costs (the “Motion”), seeking $30,364.07 in taxable costs [ECF No. 96 p. 1]. This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 99]. On January 17, 2023, Judge Hunt issued a report, recommending that the Motion be granted, and that Defendant be awarded $30,364.07 in taxable costs plus interest accruing at the statutory rate from June 23, 2022, the date of final judgment [ECF No. 111 p. 7]. Objections to the Report were due on January 31, 2023 [ECF No. 111 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 111 p. 8].
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. 96] should be GRANTED and that Defendant should be awarded taxable costs in the amount of $30,364.07, with interest accruing at the statutory rate from June 23, 2022, the date of final judgment, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 111 pp. 2-7].
Although there is a pending appeal in this matter, see 11th Cir. No. 22-12518-BB, neither party asks the Court to defer ruling on Defendant's motion for costs, and the Motion has been ripe as of August 11, 2022 [ECF Nos. 96, 104, 108; see ECF No. 102 (notice of appeal filed before Plaintiff's Opposition)].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 111] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 96] is GRANTED.
3. Defendant is entitled to recover taxable costs in the amount of $30,364.07, plus interest accruing at the statutory rate from June 23, 2022, the date of final judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED.