Oulia v. Florida Department of Transportation
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 157 ; Granting in part 144 Motion to Tax Costs. The Court awards $5,362.33 in costs; adopting Report and Recommendations re 157 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 9/15/2020. See attached document for full details. (lk)
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
Valentina Oulia, Plaintiff,
Florida Department of
Civil Action No. 18-25110-Civ-Scola
Order Adopting Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edwin G.
Torres for a report and recommendation on the Defendant’s motion for costs.
On August 19, 2020, Judge Torres issued a report, recommending that the
Court grant in part and deny in part the motion and award the Defendant costs
in the amount of $5,362.33. (R. & R., ECF No. 157.) The Plaintiff, who has been
proceeding pro se since her attorney withdrew from the matter after the moti on
was filed but before the report was issued, has filed a “motion” to oppose the
report and recommendations. (ECF No. 158.) The Court construes that
“motion” as an objection, which the Court now overrules.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the
magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically
identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which
objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208
F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
(11th Cir. 1989) (alterations omitted); see also U.S. v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353,
1360 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] party that wishes to preserve its objection must . . .
pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.”). The objections
must also present “supporting legal authority.” Local Mag. J. R. 4(b). To the
extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those
portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (quoting
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999)).
The objection briefly rehashes some of the merits of the order granting
summary judgment in the Defendant’s favor, it explains that the Plaintiff’s
counsel represented her pursuant to a contingency agreement, that this was a
stressful case for the Plaintiff and her counsel, and that it would be the “[m] ost
fair decision . . . to dismiss the costs.” (ECF No. 158.) However, at no point
does it “pinpoint” any findings regarding the costs award, much less
substantively disagree with them or present supporting legal authorities.
Accordingly, having reviewed the report and recommendation, and
finding it to be cogent and compelling, the Court affirms and adopts Judge
Torres’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 157). The Court grants in part
the Defendant’s motion for costs (ECF No. 144). Consistent with the report, the
Court awards $5,362.33 in costs to Defendant Florida Department of
Transportation to be paid by Plaintiff Valentina Oulia.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on September 15, 2020.
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?