Cole v. Carnival Corporation

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSNTA DTIESTS RDIICSTT ROIFC TFL COORUIDRTA

CASE NO. 23-60532-CIV-DAMIAN/Strauss

EUREKA COLE,

Plaintiff, v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 131 (“Motion”)], filed February 6, 2025, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss, entered on February 28, 2025 [ECF No. 131 (“Report”)]. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Strauss recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs and awarding Defendant taxable costs in the amount of $4,663.25. The Parties did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. THE COURT has considered the Report, the Motion, the record in this case, and relevant authorities and is otherwise fully advised.1 On January 7, 2025, following a bench trial held in this matter before the undersigned, the Court entered a Final Judgment in favor of Defendant, Carnival Corporation, and against Plaintiff, Eureka Cole. See ECF No. 125. As the prevailing party in this action, Defendant is entitled to an award of taxable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In the Motion, Defendant

1 As noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion and did not file a response within the time permitted by the Local Rules. seeks $550.00 for subpoenas and service of process costs and $4,183.00 for costs associated with depositions and transcripts, for a total of $4,733.00 in taxable costs. See Mot. at 3–6. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Strauss to take all necessary and proper action as required by law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida. See ECF No. 132. On February 28, 2025, Magistrate Judge Strauss issued the Report now before the Court. [ECF No. 133]. In the Report, Judge Strauss recommends granting in part Defendant’s Motion and awarding Defendant taxable costs in the amount of $4,663.25 (which is $69.75

less than the $4,733.00 that Defendant requested). As noted above, neither party filed objections to Judge Strauss’s Report, and the time for filing objections has passed. The Court 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the

Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object 2 to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Strauss makes the following findings: (1) Defendant should be awarded the $550.00 it has requested for service of subpoenas in this matter, and (2) Defendant should be awarded $4,113.25 of the $4,183.00 it has requested in deposition and transcript expenses. See Report at 3. Judge Strauss noted a calculation error in Defendant’s deposition and transcript expenses. Id. at 4. This Court agrees and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

For these reasons and finding no clear error on the face of the record, this Court fully agrees with the well-reasoned analysis and recommendations stated in Judge Strauss’s Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 133] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant=s Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 131] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3. Defendant, Carnival Corporation, may recover $4,663.25 in costs from Plaintiff, Eureka Cole. This is the sum of: a. $550.00 in subpoenas and service of process expenses, and b. $4,113.25 in deposition and transcript expenses.

3 4, Interest is awarded on all costs from the date of Final Judgment,’ at the statutory rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. FOR ALL OF WHICH SUMS LET EXECUTION ISSUE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida this 17th day of March, 2025.

MELISSA □□ 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Counsel of record

2 See Mock v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 456 F. App’x 799, 803-04 (11th Cir. 2012).