Geisler et al v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER adopting 63 Report and Recommendation; granting, in part, and denying, in part, 53 Defendant's Motion for Taxation of Costs; denying 55 Defendant's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and to adjust the Bill of Costs. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/2/2017. (JW)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION MICHAEL S. GEISLER, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 3:12-cv-1189-J-34PDB FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant. _____________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 63; Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 28, 2017. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Taxation of Costs (Dkt. No. 53) be granted in part; the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment awarding Defendant $3,099.24 in taxable costs and adjust the bill of costs accordingly; and Defendant’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 55) be denied. See Report at 18. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 63) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Taxation of Costs (Dkt. No. 53) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs in the amount of $3,099.24 and to adjust the Bill of Costs (Dkt. No. 53-1) accordingly. b. 3. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 55) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 2nd day of October, 2017. ja Copies to: Counsel of Record -2-

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?