Andrews v. Scott et al

Filing 174

ORDERED: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 172) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 162) is GRANTED and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants Brandon Mar shall, Robert Kizzire, and Sheriff Carmine Marceno, in his official capacity as Lee County Sherriff, are AWARDED $40 for expert witness fees. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno. The Motion is DEN IED in part as to the request to tax mediation and appellate clerk fees. The balance of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. While it appears they already did so, Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno can renew the Motion on or before June 1, 2021. De fendants' Renewed Motion to Enter Judgment (Doc. 163) is GRANTED. Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno are AWARDED $9,000 as costs of the previous action. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/25/2021. (AEH)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION ANITA ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:16-cv-814-SPC-MRM DEPUTY BRANDON MARSHALL, SERGEANT ROBERT KIZZIRE, CORIZON HEALTH, INC. and CARMINE MARCENO, Defendants. / ORDER1 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 172). Judge McCoy recommends granting and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 162) and granting Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Enter Judgment (Doc. 163). Neither party timely objected, so the matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 1 judge’s R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). 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. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). After careful consideration and an independent review of the file, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R (Doc. 172) in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 172) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. (2) Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 162) is GRANTED and DENIED in part. a. The Motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants Brandon Marshall, Robert Kizzire, and Sheriff Carmine Marceno, in his official capacity as Lee County Sherriff, are AWARDED $40 for expert witness fees. 2 b. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno. c. The Motion is DENIED in part as to the request to tax mediation and appellate clerk fees. d. The balance of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. e. While it appears they already did so, Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno can renew the Motion on or before June 1, 2021. (3) Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Enter Judgment (Doc. 163) is GRANTED. a. Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno are AWARDED $9,000 as costs of the previous action. b. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Marshall, Kizzire, and Marceno. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 25, 2021. Copies: All Parties of Record 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?