UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DAVID H. LANE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-259-RLM-MGG

MICHAEL PERSON,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER The court granted summary judgment to defendant Dr. Michael Person and dismissed this case on March 22, 2021. The defendant filed a Bill of Costs seeking reimbursement for $4,017.59 incurred in defending this matter. On March 24, David H. Lane, Jr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a document titled “Motion to Reopen and Reconsider Judgment on Defendant’s Summary Judgement” and filed a document titled “Objections to Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” a week later. In these filings, Mr. Lane objected to the order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and to the defendant’s Bill of Costs. The court denied Mr. Lane’s Motion to Reopen and Reconsider Judgement on Defendant’s Summary Judgment and overruled his Objections to Judge’s Findings and Recommendations on July 19. That leaves the Bill of Costs for resolution. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that, “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees— should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Where a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, “[j]udgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(f)(1). Under Rule 54(d)(1), there is a “presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party[.]” Baker v. Lindgren,

(7th Cir. 2017). Mr. Lane objects to the Bill of Costs because he disagrees with the court’s order granting the defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismissing this case. He hasn’t articulated any specific reasons for why he believes the defendant’s costs, which include a witness fee, deposition transcripts, copies, and miscellaneous court costs are not appropriate. Because Mr. Lane’s objections to the defendant’s bill of costs are simply premised on his disagreement with the court’s summary judgment

ruling, he hasn’t overcome the presumption that and award of costs is appropriate in this case. For these reasons, the court: (1) OVERRULES David H. Lane’s objections to Defendant’s Bill of Costs (ECF 126); (2) DIRECTS the Clerk to tax costs in the amount of $4,017.59;

(3) ORDERS the plaintiff, David H. Lane, Jr., IDOC # 915838, to pay (and the facility having custody to automatically remit) to the clerk 20% of the money received for each calendar month during which $10.00 or more is received, until the $4,017.59 in costs is paid in full; (4) DIRECTS the clerk to create a ledger for receipt of these funds and disperse those funds to defendants, in accordance with the bill of costs; and (5) DIRECTS the clerk to send a copy of this order to each facility where the plaintiff is housed until the costs have been paid in full. SO ORDERED on September 13, 2021

s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT