The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
MICHAEL LAPHAM,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 5:19-cv-579-MMH-PRL
vs.
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION and
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
Defendants.
/
O R D E R
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Philip R.
Lammens’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 121; Report), entered on
November 3, 2021, recommending that Defendant Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission’s Opposed Motion to Tax Costs and Supporting
Memorandum of Law (Doc. 118; Motion) and supporting Bill of Costs (Doc. 116)
be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 6. Specifically, Judge
Lammens recommends that the Court grant the Motion only to the extent that
it award Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission $3,883.70 in
taxable costs. Id. To date, no objections to the Report have been filed, and the
time for doing so has passed.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no
specific objections to findings of fact are filed, the district court is not required
to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the
district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No.
2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615 at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual
conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge, with one minor
clarification.1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens’ Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 121) as clarified is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
1 The Report cites Brown v. Riedl, No. 3:13-CV-36-J-34PDB, 2017 WL 9360887, at *3
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2017), report and recommendation adopted in part, No. 3:13-CV-36-J-
34PDB, 2017 WL 1161306 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2017), for the proposition that “court reporter’s
deposition fees are not taxable” costs. Report at 4, n.3. The report and recommendation in
that case did recommend a finding that such fees are not taxable. In adopting the report and
recommendation, however, the Court noted that the defendant did not object to the
recommended exclusion of the court reporter appearance fee. As such, the Court determined
that such costs would not be taxed in that case, but declined to adopt “the portion of the Report
determining that such costs are not taxable as a matter of law.” Brown, No. 3:13-CV-36-J-
34PDB, 2017 WL 1161306, at *3, n. 4.
- 2 -
2. Defendant Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s
Opposed Motion to Tax Costs and Supporting Memorandum of Law
(Doc. 118) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of the
Court is DIRECTED to tax costs in the amount of $3,883.70 in
favor of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
against Plaintiff Michael Lapham, adjust Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 116) as
stated in the Report, and enter judgment accordingly.
b. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, on March 29, 2022.
United States District Judge
1c28
Copies to:
Counsel of Record