Guasto v. The City of Miami Beach, Florida et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-21004-CIV-DAMIAN/D’Angelo
JESSICA GUASTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FL,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 126]
THIS 	CAUSE 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	upon 	Defendant, 	City 	of 	Miami 	Beach’s
(“Defendant” or “City”), Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 115 (the “Motion”)], filed April 7,
2025, and the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Ellen F.
D’Angelo Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs, entered
on February 4, 2026 [ECF No. 126 (the “Report”)]. In the Report, Magistrate Judge
D’Angelo recommends granting the City’s Motion in part and awarding taxable costs in the
amount of $10,699.71. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has
passed. The matter is now ripe for review.
THE COURT has considered the Report, the Motion, the record in this case, and the
relevant authorities and is otherwise fully advised.
On February 24, 2025, this Court entered a Final Judgment in favor of the Defendant,
City of Miami Beach, and against the Plaintiff, Jessica Guasto (“Guasto” or “Plaintiff”), after
granting summary judgment in favor of the City. See ECF Nos. 108, 109, 110. As the
prevailing party in this action, the City is entitled to an award of taxable costs pursuant to 28
Case 1:22-cv-21004-MD Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
U.S.C. § 1920. In the Motion, the City seeks: (a) $11,483.46 for the costs of deposition
transcripts, video recording of said depositions, and court reporter attendance fees; (b)
$1,495.00 for private process server fees for service of trial subpoenas and deposition and
records custodian subpoenas; and $80.00 for witness fees as reduced per 28 U.S.C. § 1821; for
a total of $13,058.46 in taxable costs. See Mot. at 4-9.
The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge D’Angelo to take all necessary and
proper action as required by law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See ECF No. 116.
On February 4, 2026, Magistrate Judge D’Angelo issued the Report now before the
Court. [ECF No. 126]. In the Report, Judge D’Angelo recommends granting the City’s
Motion in part and awarding the City taxable costs in the amount of $10,699.71. As noted
above, neither party filed objections to Judge D’Angelo’s Report, and the time for filing
objections has passed.
A District 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)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district
courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
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
Case 1:22-cv-21004-MD Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object
to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these
findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677
F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
In the Report, Magistrate Judge D’Angelo makes the following findings: (1) the City
should be awarded all costs for deposition transcripts and court reporter attendance fees aside
from $211.75 for vaguely described “Exhibits,” “Logistics, Processing & Electronic Files,”
and “Expenses”; (2) the City should not be awarded the costs of the deposition video
recording obtained for this case ($2,147.00) because it did not meet its burden of showing that
the video recording was necessarily obtained for use in this case; (3) the City should be
awarded $65.00 for each of the 23 subpoenas it served and $40.00 for each of the two expert
witness whose attendance was summoned, for a collective total of $10,699.71 in taxable costs
when deposition and court reporter fees are added; and (4) the City is entitled to post-
judgment interest on its taxable costs accruing from the date of the February 24, 2025 Final
Judgment See generally Report. This Court agrees and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
For these reasons and finding no clear error on the face of the record, this Court fully
agrees with the well-reasoned analysis and recommendations stated in Judge D’Angelo’s
Report. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	[ECF 	No. 	126] 	is 	AFFIRMED 	AND
ADOPTED.
2. 	Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 115] is GRANTED IN PART.
Case 1:22-cv-21004-MD Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
3. 	Defendant, City of Miami Beach, may recover $10,699.71 in costs from Plaintiff,
Jessica Guasto. This is the sum of:
a. 	$1,495.00 for the fees of serving the summons and subpoenas;
b. 	$9,124.71 for deposition transcripts and court reporter fees; and
c. 	$80.00 for witness fees.
4. 	Interest is awarded on all costs from the date of Final Judgment, February 24,
2025,1 at the statutory rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
FOR ALL OF WHICH SUMS LET EXECUTION ISSUE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida this 2nd
day of March, 2026.
______________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	Counsel of record
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ellen F. D’Angelo
1 See Mock v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 456 F. App’x 799, 803–04 (11th Cir. 2012).
Case 1:22-cv-21004-MD Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2026 Page 4 of 4