Clark v. TA Operating, LLC, 3:14cv33 JM. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20160308750
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissal of Plaintiff's compliant, Defendant has filed a motion for costs pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 44) The time for response has passed, and no response was filed. Based on the supporting affidavit and the applicable law, including Local Rule 7.2(f), Defendant's motion for costs is GRANTED, and Defendant is awarded costs in the
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissal of Plaintiff's compliant, Defendant has filed a motion for costs pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 44) The time for response has passed, and no response was filed. Based on the supporting affidavit and the applicable law, including Local Rule 7.2(f), Defendant's motion for costs is GRANTED, and Defendant is awarded costs in the ..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissal of Plaintiff's compliant, Defendant has filed a motion for costs pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 44) The time for response has passed, and no response was filed. Based on the supporting affidavit and the applicable law, including Local Rule 7.2(f), Defendant's motion for costs is GRANTED, and Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $3,817.55.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
