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

Filing 7

ORDER that the Magistrate Judges M&R, (Doc. No. 6 ), is ADOPTED; and Petitioners' Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum of Law in Support, (Doc. No. 5 ), is GRANTED: the Respondents are hereby in CIVIL CONTEMPT of the Cou rt's Order (Doc. No. 3 ), each respondent may purge such contempt by complying with the Order by 4/1/21. If Respondents do not purge such contempt, they shall be fined the sum of $500 per day after 4/1/2021 until compliance. Petitioners are awarded all reasonable fees and costs incurred in connection with this proceeding. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/26/2021. (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:20-mc-83-RJC-DSC
XFINITY MOBILE et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
D TOWN TRADING INC. et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Petitioners’ Motion for
Sanctions and Memorandum of Law in Support, (Doc. No. 5), and the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 6); 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
No 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
1

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 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.
2

IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 6), is ADOPTED; and
2. Petitioners’ Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum of Law in Support,
(Doc. No. 5), is GRANTED;
a. The Respondents are hereby IN CIVIL CONTEMPT of the
Court’s Order entered on July 28, 2020, (Doc. No. 3);
b. Each of the Respondents may purge such contempt by complying
with the Order dated July 28, 2020, (Doc. No. 3), on or before
April 1, 2021;
c. In the event that the Respondents do not purge such contempt,
they shall be fined the sum of $500 per day after the April 1, 2021
deadline and such fine shall continue until the Respondent in
question has fully complied with the July 28, 2020 Order, (Doc.
No. 3); and
d. Petitioners are awarded all reasonable fees and costs incurred in
connection with this proceeding.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 26, 2021

3