Miller v. Wal-Mart

Filing 95

AMENDED ORDER overruling Plaintiff's 91 Opposition to Defendant's Bill of Cost. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 10/29/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 1:13-cv-00046-MOC-DLH
MARK KEVIN MILLER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
WAL-MART,
Defendant.

AMENDED
ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of plaintiff’s “Opposition to Defendant’s
Bill of Costs” (#91), which was filed outside the time allowed to object to the Clerk of Court’s
Taxation of Costs (#90). Despite such untimeliness, the court has considered plaintiff’s
objection.
Read in a light most favorable to the pro se litigant, plaintiff argues that he should not be
taxed with the cost of the deposition because it was not used at trial or a hearing. Plaintiff
overlooks the fact that the deposition transcript was used by defendant in support of its Motion
for Summary Judgment, which is a use that satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2); L.Cv.R. 54.1(F)(1).
The fact that plaintiff did not hire the court reporter is not a relevant consideration. The Clerk of
Court’s findings to such effect in his Taxation of Costs are, therefore, consistent with current
law. The objection is, therefore, overruled.

-1-

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Opposition to Defendant’s Bill of
Costs” (#91) is OVERRULED.

Signed: October 29, 2015

-2-