UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81350-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

JENIFER ZDUNCYK,

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SPRINGBIG, INC., 

Defendant.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS [ECF No. 38] 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s Report and 

Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs (the “Report”) [ECF No. 38], filed on May 25, 

2023. 

*** 

On April 18, 2023, the Court issued an Order on Plaintiff’s Acceptance of Offer of 

Judgment [ECF No. 34], accepting Plaintiff’s Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment 

[ECF No. 33]. On April 19, 2023, the Court entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiff

[ECF No. 35]. Subsequent to the Court’s entry of final judgment, Plaintiff filed the Motion for 

Bill of Costs (the “Motion”), seeking $445.00 in taxable costs [ECF No. 36 p. 3]. This Court 

referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation 

[ECF No. 37]. On May 25, 2023, Judge Reinhart issued a report, recommending that the Motion 

be granted, and that Plaintiff be awarded $445.00 in taxable costs [ECF No. 38 p. 2]. Objections 

to the Report were due on June 8, 2023 [ECF No. 38 p. 2]. Defendant filed of Notice of No 

Case 9:22-cv-81350-AMC Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 1 of 3
 CASE NO. 22-81350-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2 

Objection to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 39]. Plaintiff has not filed objections, 

and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 38 p. 2].

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file 

specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation 

to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court 

reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, 

the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the 

record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence 

of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston 

v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. The 

Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion [ECF No. 36] 

should be GRANTED and that Plaintiff should be awarded taxable costs in the amount of $445.00, 

for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 38 p. 1].

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 38] is ACCEPTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiff is entitled to recover taxable costs in the amount of $445.00. 

Case 9:22-cv-81350-AMC Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 2 of 3
 CASE NO. 22-81350-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 13th day of June 2023.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81350-AMC Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 3 of 3