O'Bryan v. Joe Taylor Restoration, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-80993-DIMITROULEAS

TIMOTHY O’BRYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOE TAYLOR RESTORATION, INC., a Florida Corporation, AARON GETTY, individually, KAREN RADEWICZ, individually, and GLENDA GALARZA, individually,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Amended Motion to Tax Costs Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 [DE 90], and the September 29, 2021 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William Matthewman [DE 98] (the “Report”). The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 98] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 98] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 98] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 98] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Defendants’ Amended Motion to Tax Costs [DE 90] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 3. Defendants are entitled to costs in the amount of $4,478.81. 4. Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs [DE 87] is DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 14th day October, 2021.

f a ? ; 2 (F a “4 if { FO etrsnnnnc zd a3 v Py j ‘4 ta ase □□ VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS Copies furnished to: United States District Judge Counsel of record