Harrell v. City of Opa-Locka

Full title: YVETTE HARRELL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Date published: May 20, 2022

20-21927-CIV-ALTMAN/Goodman (S.D. Fla. May. 20, 2022)

Opinion

20-21927-CIV-ALTMAN/Goodman

05-20-2022

YVETTE HARRELL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, Defendant.

ROY K. ALTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

ROY K. ALTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman has submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 64], in which he suggests that the Defendant's Verified Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 62] (the “Motion”) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Goodman has recommended that we “award the City [of Opa-Locka] $2,383.00 in taxable costs ($589.50 less than the requested amount), ” R&R at 2, “plus interest from the date of final judgment, ” id. at 17.

Magistrate Judge Goodman has also advised the parties as follows:

The parties will have 14 days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations within which to file written objections, if any, with the United States District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other party's objection within 14 days of the objection. Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).

Id. at 17-18. Neither party objected to the R&R, and 14 days have passed. See generally Docket.

When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id., advisory committee's notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress intended to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed-and not, as here, 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 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)).

“To be clearly erroneous, a decision must strike us as more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must, as one member of this court recently stated during oral argument, strike us as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988). The Court has reviewed the R&R, the Motion, the record, and the governing law, and we can find no clear error on the face of the R&R.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows:

1. The R&R [ECF No. 64] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

2. The Defendant's Verified Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 62] (the “Motion”) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant $2,383.00 in taxable costs ($589.50 less than the requested amount of $2,972.50), plus interest from the date of the final judgment, as accrued under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

DONE AND ORDERED.