Bloomer v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Darius Juan BLOOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Bloomer appeals an award of costs entered in favor of Defendant United Parcel Service by the clerk of the district court. We dismiss because by failing to request the district court to review *1221 the clerk’s award, Plaintiff has waived the right to judicial review.
Final judgment was entered by the district court in favor of Defendant on September 23, 2002. Fourteen days later, Defendant filed a bill of costs with the clerk of the court. Plaintiff filed objections. On November 7, 2002, the clerk awarded Defendant $2,419.80 in costs. Rather than move the district court to review the clerk’s award within five days as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1), Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal twenty-five days after entry of the clerk’s award.
Rule 54(d)(1) provides in relevant part as follows:
On motion served within 5 days [after clerk’s award], the action of the clerk may be reviewed by the court.
(Emphasis added.)
Those circuits that have construed this language have concluded that a party’s failure to file a motion for review of costs with the district court within the five-day period constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the award. We agree.
In Prince v. Poulos, 876 F.2d 30, 34 (5th Cir.1989), the Fifth Circuit held that appellant had “waived his objection to the Bill of Costs” because he “failed to object to the costs” within the five-day time period. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits also have held that they may review an award of costs only when a party first files a proper motion for review in the district court within the five-day period specified for such motions See Cooper v. Eagle River Memorial Hosp., Inc., 270 F.3d 456 , 464 (7th Cir.2001);
Walker v. California, 200 F.3d 624, 626 (9th Cir.1999);
see also Fleet Inv. Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 87 F.R.D. 537, 540 (W.D.Okla.1978) (district court held that defendant’s failure to file motion to review clerk’s taxation of costs within Rule 54(d)(1)’s time period precluded review), aff'd, 620 F.2d 792 (10th Cir.1980).
DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(construing a previous version of Rule 54(d)(1) with a five-day review period)
Cited by 16 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.