Cole v. Meeks, 15-1292. (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20190711a31
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL M. MIHM , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (ECF No. 170), that was entered on June 20, 2019, which addresses Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs (ECF No. 165). Neither Party has filed an objection to the R&R. This Order follows. The Court may accept, reject, or modify (in whole or in part) the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommen
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL M. MIHM , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (ECF No. 170), that was entered on June 20, 2019, which addresses Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs (ECF No. 165). Neither Party has filed an objection to the R&R. This Order follows. The Court may accept, reject, or modify (in whole or in part) the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommend..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (ECF No. 170), that was entered on June 20, 2019, which addresses Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs (ECF No. 165). Neither Party has filed an objection to the R&R. This Order follows.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify (in whole or in part) the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objection is made, the Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in the district court, he waives appellate review on both factual and legal questions. Video Views v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). The R&R concluded that Defendants were entitled to $19,049.95 in total costs, and the costs should not accrue post-judgment interest.
Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's R&R, together with the entire record, the Court concurs with the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins for the reasons set forth in his Report and Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins [170] is ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $19,049.95, with costs not to accrue post-judgment interest.
3. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to enter an Amended Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff noting the award of costs. This case remains TERMINATED.
Source: Leagle
