Allen Rollock v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24-61661-CIV-DAMIAN/Strauss

ALLEN ROLLOCK, Plaintiff, v. GATE GOURMET, INC., Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS [ECF NO. 37] THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 37], of United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss, entered on April 29, 2026 [ECF No. 40 (“Report”)]. Judge Strauss recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion and award Defendant taxable costs in the amount of $2,615.74. The parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed.1 The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the parties’ briefing, the record, and the applicable law to assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In light When no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face o f the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not 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.”). of that review, the undersigned agrees with Judge Strauss’s well-reasoned findings and thorough analyses and conclusions and agrees with Judge Strauss’s recommendation that the Motion to Tax Costs be granted in part and denied in part, and that Defendant be awarded taxable costs in the amount of $2,615.74, plus interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 40] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 37] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3. Defendant is awarded taxable costs in the amount of $2,615.74, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, plus interest in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961, for which let execution issue.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida, this 21st day of May, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss Counsel of record