718 F.Supp. 906, 910 n. 1 (M.D.Fla.1989), affd, 914 F.2d 267 (11th Cir.1990). In this case, Defendant is the prevailing party. Consequently, Defendant is presumptively entitled to an award of costs. B. Specific Costs Sought In the pending Motion, Defendant seeks $1,179.00 in taxable costs. [D.E. 44], Although Plaintiff has failed to object to the costs set forth in Defendant’s Motion, the Court nonetheless reviews each category of the items sought in the Defendant’s Motion, and whether Defendant can properly receive monies for these categories of costs under the statute. 1. Fees for Service of Subpoena and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment According to case law, “private process server fees may be taxed pursuant to §§ 1920(1) and 1921 [of the statute].” EEOC, 213 F.3d at 624 (<HOLDING>); see, e.g., Lovett v. KLLM, Inc., 2007 WL
holding that the costs of computerized research was a component of attorneys fees that cannot be independently taxed as an item of cost holding private process server fees may be taxed under  1920 holding the district court properly allowed guardian ad litem fees to be taxed as costs recognizing the supreme courts precept that district courts may decline to tax costs enumerated in  1920 but cannot award costs not enumerated under  1920 citing crawford fitting 482 us at 44245107 sct 2494 holding that  1920 does not authorize taxing mediation fees as costs