Chittenden v. Hillsborough County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

JAMES CHITTENDEN,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:19-cv-1504-TPB-AAS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Amanda A. Sansone, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 12, 2021. (Doc. 58). Judge Sansone recommends that “Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Determine Defendant’s Entitlement to Costs” (Doc. 54) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Sansone recommends that Defendant be awarded $2,955.80 in taxable costs against Plaintiff. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time to object has expired.1

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district Plaintiff’s copy of the report and recommendation was returned to the Court on 9/7/2021 marked “return to sender.” The Court does not have another address on file. court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in all respects. The Court agrees with Judge Sansone’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. Consequently, “Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Determine Defendant’s Entitlement to Costs” is granted in part and denied in part.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation (Doc. 58) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) “Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Determine Defendant’s Entitlement to Costs” (Doc. 54) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (3) The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Defendant Hillsborough County is awarded $2,955.80 in taxable costs against the Plaintiff James Chittenden. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. (4) The motion is DENIED to the extent that Defendant seeks additional or different relief.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of September, 2021.

= / 4) ee / ‘| | io 1. | / I ¢ 2 A □□ je! |

TOM BARBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE