Francisco v. Pinellas County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CRISTINA FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:23-cv-1518-KKM-AEP

PINELLAS COUNTY,

Defendant.

ORDER e United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting the defendant’s motion for taxation of costs (Doc. 55). e deadline to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation has passed, and the Defendant objects in part, based on a clerical error. (Doc. 56). Considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in part. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. , 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). e district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. &. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). I adopt the Report and Recommendation in part. The Defendant objects to the Report listing the Plaintiff as the movant, as opposed to the Defendant. (Doc. 56). The Report should list Defendant Pinellas County as the movant and recipient of costs. In all other respects, I adopt the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55) is ADOPTED in part. 2. The Defendant’s motion for taxation of costs (Doc. 53) is GRANTED. 3. The Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $5,307.15. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 4, 2025.

athryn’ Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge