Ministerios el Camino v. Scottsdale Insurance Company ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:21-cv-22502-KMM MINISTERIOS EL CAMINO, Plaintiff, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 22). Therein, Defendant requests that the Court issue an Order taxing costs against Plaintiff Ministerios El Camino in the amount of $822.00. Id. at 3. The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 23). On July 25, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 26), recommending that Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED. Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. 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)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that: (1) because this Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant against Plaintiff, Defendant is entitled to recuperate its costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, see R&R at 2; (2) Defendant is entitled to the full amount it requested for fees of the clerk, namely $402.00, see id. at 3; and (3) Defendant is entitled to its costs associated with transcript and reporter fees, namely $420.00, see id. This Court agrees. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 26) is ADOPTED. Defendant is awarded $822.00 in costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th_ day of October, 2022. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record