Case Information
*1 Case 9:22-cv-81083-AMC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2025 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 22-81083-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart CRAIG ZOBEL , Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ,
Defendant. ___________________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs (the “Report”) [ECF No. 47], filed on March 24, 2025. On March 13, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Tax Costs (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 42]. [1] On March 24, 2025, following referral, Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 47 p. 1]. Objections to the Report were due on April 7, 2025 [ECF No. 47 p. 2], but to date, no party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so.
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones , 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc ., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court
*2 Case 9:22-cv-81083-AMC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2025 Page 2 of 2 CASE NO. 22-81083-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort , 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil , 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co ., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 47 p. 1], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 47] is ACCEPTED . 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 42] and Motion for Bill of Costs
[ECF No. 45] are GRANTED . 3. Plaintiff is entitled to recover taxable costs in the amount of $402 [ECF No. 47 p. 1]. 4. This case shall remain CLOSED . ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 11th day of April 2025.
_________________________________ AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record 2
NOTES
[1] Plaintiff also filed a separate “Motion” for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 45] after Magistrate Judge Reinhart directed Plaintiff to file a Bill of Costs. Though unclear why Plaintiff filed the Bill of Costs as a separate motion, the Court considers it in conjunction with the Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 42].