SUBSEA MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. SINT MAARTEN INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 24-14016-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart SUBSEA MARINE SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SINT MAARTEN INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant. ________________________________/

SINT MAARTEN INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.,

Counter-claimant,

v.

SUBSEA MARINE SERVICES, INC.,

Counter-defendant. __________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 210]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs (the “Report”) [ECF No. 210], issued on June 24, 2026. On November 14, 2025, following jury trial and verdict in Plaintiff’s favor [ECF Nos. 156, 159], Plaintiff filed a Motion for Costs pursuant to Local Rule 7.3, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 166]. On June 24, 2026, following referral, Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued the Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 210 p. 9]. Objections to the Report were due on July 8, 2026 CASE NO. 24-14016-CIV-CANNOW/Reinhart

[ECF No. 210 p. 9]. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Objection [ECF No. 214]. To date, Defendant has filed no objections to the Report and no request to defer consideration of the Motion [ECF No. 210 p. 9]. 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 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’ 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. Following clear error review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 210], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 210] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 166] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the Court TAXES COSTS in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $2,123.50. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this day of July 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record