Brook et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 71

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 68 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion to Tax Costs. Signed by Judge Ursula Ungaro on 7/29/2009. (tas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SO U T H E R N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-60314-CIV-UNGARO CH RISTOPHE R BROOK and LY N N BROOK, P l a i n t i ffs , v. U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, D e fe n d a n t . ____________________________________/ O R D E R ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TH IS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Verified Motion to Tax Costs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and Local Rule 7.3, filed March 3, 2009 (D.E. 50). THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Andrea Simonton, United States Magistrate Judge. (D.E. 59.) A Report and Recommendation dated July 14, 2009, has been filed, recomm ending that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (D.E. 68.) The pa rties have failed to file objections to the Report. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 145 (11th Cir. 19 88 ), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988) (holding that the failure to file timely objections bars the parties from attacking factual findings on appeal). Accordingly, the matter is now ripe for disp ositi on . THIS COURT has made a de novo review of the entire file and record herein, and, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby OR DE RE D AND ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Simonton's Report and R ecom m end ation of July 14, 2009, is RATIFIED, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED, and Plaintiffs' V erified Motion to Tax Costs (D.E. 50) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are awarded costs totaling $9,134.97. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of July, 2009. URSULA UNGARO U NIT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cop ies provided: U.S. Magistrate Judge Simonton C ounsel 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?