Eames v. USA

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND DECISION denying 2 Motion for Ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 2/27/15 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION

BRADY EAMES,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 1:14-CV-0020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Chief District Judge David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner by Chief District Judge
David Nuffer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).1 Before the court is Brady Eames’s
(“Plaintiff”) motion for ruling.
Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the United States District Court for the District of Utah
Rules of Practice, the court elects to determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda
and finds that oral argument would not be helpful or necessary. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for ruling, requesting that the United States of
America (“Defendant”) compensate Plaintiff for mailing costs, and require Defendant to provide
proof of receipt in some manner other than a responsive pleading. On May 22, 2014, Defendant
filed a timely response to the motion. Earlier today, this court issued a Report and
Recommendation on several dispositive motions in this case and recommended that Plaintiff’s
case be dismissed for lack of standing.2

1

See docket no. 7.

2

See docket no. 16.

As Defendant correctly notes, Plaintiff’s instant motion seeking compensation for
mailing costs is essentially a bill of costs. If the district court fails to adopt this court’s
recommendation that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed and instead allows the case to continue, then
Plaintiff’s bill of costs is premature. See DUCivR 54-2(a) (“Within fourteen days after the entry
of final judgment, the party entitled to recover costs must file a bill of costs.”). However, should
the district court adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismisses the case, the bill of costs
is inappropriate. Only “[a] prevailing party in any civil action is entitled to recover those costs
enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 subject to the discretion of the court.” United States v. Orenic,
110 F.R.D. 548, 586 (W.D. V.A. 1986). In either circumstance, the court agrees with Defendant
and therefore DENIES this portion of Plaintiff’s motion for ruling.
Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling Defendant to prove its receipt of summons and
complaint in some other manner than by filing a motion to dismiss. This request is meaningless
and redundant. Plaintiff clearly knows that the summons and complaint were received by
Defendant, there is no need for the court to compel “conventional service” of receipt. The court
likewise DENIES this portion of Plaintiff’s motion for ruling.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for ruling is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

2