UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 0:22-cv-62135-KMM

MINDEN PICTURES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEPI MARKETING CORP.,

Defendant. /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Bill of Costs. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 17). The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 20). On July 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 23), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be GRANTED. No objections were received, and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review.

Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel,

(M.D. Fla. 2000))). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that: (1) Plaintiff is entitled to recover its filing fees in the amount of $402.00, see R&R at 3-4; and (2) Plaintiff is entitled to recover $41.60 in fees for the service of summons, see id. at 4. This Court agrees. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Bill of Costs (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $443.60 in costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 2nd_ day of August, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record