United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division
RANDALL E. BRICKEY, Plaintiff,
ROBB HALL, Defendant.
Glen E. Conrad Chief United States District Judge.
case arises from plaintiff Randall Brickey's termination
from the Saltville Police Department ("SPD")
following the publication of Brickey's responses to
questions posed to him by local newspapers during his Town
Council campaign. Brickey filed this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against several members of the SPD and the
Saltville Town Council, alleging that his termination
constituted a retaliatory discharge in violation of the First
Amendment. The case is presently before the court on the
defendant Rob Hall's bill of costs, filed pursuant to
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For
the reasons that follow, the court will award the defendant
costs in the amount of $1, 620.90.
September 2, 2014, the court denied in part and granted in
part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. As a
result, all defendants, with the exception of Robb Hall, were
dismissed from the case. Hall filed a Notice of Appeal,
seeking review of the court's denial of summary judgment
that was based on the determination that Hall was not
shielded by qualified immunity. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, and
held that Hall was entitled to qualified immunity. On August
5, 2016, the court, in a final judgment order, entered
summary judgment in favor of Hall.
case is now before the court on the defendant's request
for an award of costs in the amount of $2, 466.70. The time
to respond to Hall's bill of costs has lapsed, and
plaintiff has not indicated any opposition. The matter is
ripe for review.
of the Applicable Law
Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, costs
'should be allowed to the prevailing party' unless a
federal statute provides otherwise." Williams v.
Metro Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 636 (4th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1)). Thus, the rule "creates
the presumption that costs are to be awarded to the
prevailing party." Cherry v. Champion Int'l
Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999). Although the
court has the discretion to deny an award of costs, it must
"articulate some good reason for doing so, " in
order to "overcome the presumption." Id.
(internal citations omitted). The particular expenses that
may be taxed as costs under Rule 54(d)(1) are set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 1920. That statute provides, in pertinent part,
or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies
of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained
for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; and
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of
interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of
special interpretation services ...