From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bostick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Mar 23, 2018
Case No. 8:16-cv-1400-T-33AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 8:16-cv-1400-T-33AAS

03-23-2018

LISA N. BOSTICK, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court in consideration of the March 8, 2018, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone (Doc. # 173), recommending that Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company be awarded $16,351.23 in taxable costs, plus prejudgment interest, as the prevailing party. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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-Hous. v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).

The Court has conducted an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's detailed and well-reasoned analysis.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 173) is ADOPTED. (2) Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. # 156) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART such that State Farm is entitled to $16,351.23 in taxable costs, plus prejudgment interest, as specified in the Report and Recommendation.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 23rd day of March, 2018.

/s/_________

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Bostick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Mar 23, 2018
Case No. 8:16-cv-1400-T-33AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2018)
Case details for

Bostick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:LISA N. BOSTICK, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE…

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

Date published: Mar 23, 2018

Citations

Case No. 8:16-cv-1400-T-33AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2018)