Opinion
1:21-cv-21785-KMM
01-23-2023
MARIO MARANON, Plaintiff, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO, Defendant.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company's Motion for Bill of Costs (ECF No. 49) and Memorandum of Law in Support of Bill of Costs (ECF No. 50). The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or to issue a Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 51). On November 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 55), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now 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 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Yet when a party has failed to object 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-CV-21230, 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) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends Defendant be awarded: (1) $1,578.40 in costs associated with court reporter fees, transcription, and interpreter fees; (2) $176.00 for service of subpoena costs; (3) $80.00 in witness fees; (4) $402.00 in filing fees; and (4) post-judgment interest. See generally R&R. This Court agrees.
The R&R further recommends that Defendant's request for $22.14 in printing costs be denied. Id. at 9. To recover printing and copying costs, the prevailing party must provide more than the mere label that the costs they seek to recover are ‘copying costs.' See Lebron v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-24687-KMW, 2021 WL 3007191, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-24687-CIV, 2021 WL 3005648 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2021) (“General copying costs without further descriptions . . . however, are not recoverable.”). Here, Defendant identifies the costs sought as related to general photocopying and printing and provides no further explanation. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends denying Defendant's request for copying the costs. R&R at 9. 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 the R&R (ECF No. 55) is ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion for Bill of Costs (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED IN PART and Defendant is awarded $2,236.40 in taxable costs, plus post-judgment interest.
DONE AND ORDERED