Filed: Oct. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's Motion and Application to Tax Costs (Dkt. 41), filed on July 9, 2014. On August 27, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 42), recommending that Defendant's Motion and Application to Tax Costs be granted in part and denied in part and that Defendant be awarded costs in the amount of $2,532.98. No objections were filed to the Rep
Summary: ORDER MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's Motion and Application to Tax Costs (Dkt. 41), filed on July 9, 2014. On August 27, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 42), recommending that Defendant's Motion and Application to Tax Costs be granted in part and denied in part and that Defendant be awarded costs in the amount of $2,532.98. No objections were filed to the Repo..
More
ORDER
MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's Motion and Application to Tax Costs (Dkt. 41), filed on July 9, 2014. On August 27, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 42), recommending that Defendant's Motion and Application to Tax Costs be granted in part and denied in part and that Defendant be awarded costs in the amount of $2,532.98. No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so 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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). 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., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 42), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order; and
2. Defendant's Motion and Application to Tax Costs (Dkt. 41), is hereby GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part; and
3. Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $2,532.98.
DONE and ORDERED.
