Xfinity Mobile, A Brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC et al v. D Town Trading INC. et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 9 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part Petitioners' 8 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 12/30/2021. (brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC
XFINITY MOBILE et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
D TOWN TRADING INC. et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Order

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioners’ Second Motion for Sanctions,
(DE 8), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (DE 9);
recommending that this Court grant the Petitioners’ motion and impose sanctions. The parties
have not filed objections to the M&R and the time for doing so has expired. FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(2).
I.

BACKGROUND
Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and procedural

background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a

magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
& (B).

The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, “when
objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review

Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 10 Filed 01/03/22 Page 1 of 3

of the record may be dispensed with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). De
novo review is also not required “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Id. Similarly, when no objection is filed, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72, advisory committee note).
III.

DISCUSSION
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge shall make

a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has been
made. A party’s failure to make a timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). No
objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having passed, the parties have
waived their right to de novo review of any issue covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court
has conducted a full review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having done so,
hereby finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in accordance
with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge as its own.
IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (DE 9), is ADOPTED; and

2.

Petitioners’ Motion for Sanctions, (DE 8), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Specifically, the Court DENIES Petitioners’ request that Respondents, Mr.

2
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 10 Filed 01/03/22 Page 2 of 3

Alasfar, and any other officers or directors of Respondents that had knowledge of
the Orders in this case show cause why they should not be held in criminal
contempt. The Court GRANTS Petitioners’ other requests and ORDERS that:
a. The Respondents continue to be IN CIVIL CONTEMPT of the Court’s
Order entered July 28, 2020, (DE 3);
b. Mr. Alasfar, as well as any other officers or directors of Respondents that
had knowledge of the Orders in the present case are hereby IN CIVIL
CONTEMPT of the Court’s Order entered July 28, 2020, (DE 3);
c. As Respondents have yet to purge such contempt, they shall continue to be
fined the sum of $500 per day until the Respondent in question has fully
complied with the July 28, 2020 order, (DE 3);
d. Petitioners are awarded all reasonable fees and costs incurred in connection
with this proceeding; and
e. Should Respondents fail to purge such contempt by January 31, 2022, Mr.
Alasfar and any other officers or directors of Respondents that had
knowledge of the Orders in the present case will be jointly and severally
liable for any fines or costs incurred by their associated Respondent in
connection with this proceeding that accrues from February 1, 2022 onward.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 30, 2021

3
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 10 Filed 01/03/22 Page 3 of 3