UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BAHAA KALASHO,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 02-71854

v.

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

WILLIAM MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ACCEPTING

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer’s Report and

Recommendation dated July 12, 2005. The Magistrate Judge recommended this Court grant the

Motion to Tax Costs filed by Defendants Martin, Jones, Stegall, Straub, Hofbauer, Meyers,

Hutchins, Moore, Smoyer, Putnam, Aalto, Evans, Towers, and Feldpausch. Neither Party has filed

Objections to Magistrate Judge Scheer’s Report and Recommendation. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review to be employed by the Court when examining a Report and

Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

In order to have preserved his right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the

Parties were obligated to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within ten days of

service of a copy, as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure

to file specific objections may constitute a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

2:02-cv-71854-DPH-DAS Doc # 107 Filed 08/23/05 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1019
2

U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991);

United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

III. APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS

Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the prevailing party in a civil matter

to recover costs other than attorney fees as a matter of course, “unless the court otherwise directs.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The rule “creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs, but allows

denial of costs at the discretion of the trial judge.” Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534, 539 (6th Cir.

2001). Certain factors that may justify a court in overcoming this presumption are (1) the losing

party’s good faith, (2) the difficulty of the case, (3) the winning party’s behavior, (4) necessity of

the costs, and (5) indigency of the losing party. Id. However, indigency of the losing party will not

automatically preclude taxation of costs. Id.

As the Magistrate Judge notes however, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub.

L. No. 104–134, §§ 7801–10, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), now requires that prisoners having judgments

entered against them must pay the costs either in full or in accordance with the payment process set

forth in § 1915(b)(2) without consideration of the prisoner’s ability to pay. See In re Prison

Litigation Reform Act, No. 97-01, 15 (6th Cir., Feb. 4, 1997). 

Defendants seek $20 in docket fees and $202.80 in copying fees, for a total amount of

$222.80. 28 U.S.C. § 1923(a) authorizes an award of docket fees, while 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) allows

for copying fees. The Magistrate Judge found Defendants’ request reasonable and recommended

granting Defendants’ Motion. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination, for the

reasons stated in his Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, 

2:02-cv-71854-DPH-DAS Doc # 107 Filed 08/23/05 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1020
3

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer’s Report and Recommendation

[Docket No. 106, filed July 12, 2005] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and

conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs [Docket Nos. 101, 102,

filed June 7, 2005] is GRANTED. 

 /s/ Denise Page Hood 

DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: August 23, 2005 

2:02-cv-71854-DPH-DAS Doc # 107 Filed 08/23/05 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1021