Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whitney Dawkins, Jr., Hg-Ksc v. City and County of Honolulu; Zane Hamrick; Barry Tong; and John Does 1-10

April 27, 2012

WHITNEY DAWKINS, JR., HG-KSC PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; ZANE HAMRICK; BARRY TONG; AND JOHN DOES 1-10,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Helen Gillmor United States District Judge

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' BILL OF COSTS AS UNTIMELY (DOC. 270) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF's MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME (DOC. 274) AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TAXATION OF COSTS (DOC. 268)

On February 3, 2012, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants City and County of Honolulu, Zane Hamrick, and Barry Tong. (Doc. 260). On February 8, 2012, the Clerk of the Court entered Judgment. (Doc. 267). On February 17, 2012, the Defendants filed a Motion for Taxation of Costs. (Doc. 268). On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Bill of Costs. (Doc. 269). On February 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to Deny the Plaintiff's Objection as Untimely. (Doc. 270). On March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to File an Objection to the Defendants' Bill of Costs. (Doc. 274).

The Court construes the Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

The Court declines to adopt the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to Deny Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Bill of Costs as Untimely (Doc. 270).

The Court withdraws the reference to the Magistrate Judge for the Defendants' Motion for Taxation of Costs. The District Court conducted the trial and is more familiar with the circumstances bearing on the taxation of costs, therefore, in the interests of judicial economy, the Court considers the Motion.

Defendant's Motion for Taxation of Costs (Doc. 268) is DENIED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 3, 2012, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants. (Doc. 260).

On February 8, 2012, the Clerk of the Court entered Judgment. (Doc. 267).

On February 17, 2012, the Defendants filed a Bill of Costs. (Doc. 268).

On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Bill of Costs. (Doc. 269).

On February 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Bill of Costs as Untimely. (Doc. 270).

On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to File an Opposition to the Defendants' Bill of Costs. (Doc. 274). The Court treats Plaintiff's Motion as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's Objection as Untimely.

On March 20, 2012, the Defendants filed a Response. (Doc. 279).

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court elected to decide the matters without a hearing.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

I. Findings and Recommendation

A magistrate judge may be assigned to prepare findings and recommendation for a district judge on a matter that is dispositive of a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). If a party objects to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, the district court must review de novo those portions to which objection is made. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.