Curry v. HSBC Holdings, LLC
ORDER adopting 101 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's objections to the proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. 94) are hereby OVERRULED for the reasons expressed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Def endant's proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. 93-1) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. For the reasons expressed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Defendant's proposed Bill of Costs is DENIED with respect to its request for the purported cost associated with "Copies of Discovery Pleadings" and GRANTED with respect to all other costs. The Clerk is directed to tax costs in favor of Defendant in the amount of $4,909.14, plus post judgment interest. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 10/9/2013. (BGS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 6:11-cv-963-Orl-36GJK
HSBC TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES,
This cause comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly on July 15, 2013.
In the Report and
Recommendation, Judge Kelly recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendant
HSBC Technology & Services, LLC’s (“HSBC”) proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. 93-1) and
overruling Plaintiff Jacqueline Curry’s (“Curry”) objections to the Bill of Costs (Doc. 94,
“Plaintiff[’s] Response to Defendant’s Motion for Taxation of Costs”). Id. at 7. Curry filed an
Objection to the Report and Recommendation on July 26, 2013. (Doc. 102.) No objections were
filed by Defendant HSBC. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is now ripe for
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), in pertinent part, provides that “a party may
serve and file specific written objections to . . . proposed findings and recommendations.” Once
a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation is made, the district judge “shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Jeffrey S. v. State
Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge may also receive further evidence
or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with further instructions. Id. The district judge
reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
In Plaintiff Curry’s one-page Objection to the Report and Recommendation, she objects
to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, generally, but does not provide a basis for her
objection. Doc. 102. Instead, she “requests an itemized listing of all claimed costs.” Id. As
Curry has not articulated any basis underlying her objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings,
the Court finds her objection to be meritless.
Recommendation is, therefore, overruled.
Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and
After careful consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kelly, in conjunction with an independent examination of
the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted,
confirmed, and approved in all respects.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 101) is adopted,
confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all
purposes, including appellate review.
2. Plaintiff’s objections to the proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. 94) are hereby
OVERRULED for the reasons expressed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
3. Defendant’s proposed Bill of Costs (Doc. 93-1) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. For the reasons expressed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, Defendant’s proposed Bill of Costs is DENIED with
respect to its request for the purported cost associated with “Copies of Discovery
Pleadings” and GRANTED with respect to all other costs.
4. The Clerk is directed to tax costs in favor of Defendant in the amount of
$4,909.14, plus post judgment interest.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 9, 2013.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly
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?