Allied World Specialty Insurance Company v. MRL Plumbing LLC et al
ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, directing the Clerk to enter default against defendants. Any further proceedings related to this matter should be directed to the Magistrate Judge, withdrawing (per Allied's objections to the R&R) 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Allied World Specialty Insurance Company, accepting 50 Report and Recommendation, and mooting 14 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Allied World Specialty Insurance Company. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on August 3, 2017. (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a DARWIN
NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, a
Case No. 0:16-3030-TLW
MRL PLUMBING, LLC, a South Carolina
Corporation; MICHAEL LOBDELL, an
individual and PATRICIA LOBDELL, an
On September 6, 2016, Allied World Specialty Insurance Company, f/k/a Darwin National
Assurance Company (“Allied”), filed this breach of contract action against MRL Plumbing, LLC
(“MRL”), Michael Lobdell, and Patricia Lobdell (collectively “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. The
matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed
by Magistrate Judge Hodges to whom this case was assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. ECF No. 50. In the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends denying Allied’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 11,
and motion for partial summary judgment of specific performance, ECF No. 14. However, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court enter default against Defendants as requested by
Allied in an earlier filing, ECF No. 39, in light of the circumstances explained in the R&R and set
forth in the Rule to Show Cause, ECF No. 47. Allied filed objections to the R&R. ECF No. 52.
No other objections were filed and the time to do so has now expired.
In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and Allied’s objections pursuant to the Wallace
As to the entry of default, noting that Allied agrees that the entry of default is proper and
noting Defendants filed no objections, the R&R is hereby ACCEPTED. Therefore, for the reasons
set forth on pages 7–8 of the R&R as further explained in the Rule to Show Cause and Allied’s
brief in support of the entry of default, the Clerk is hereby directed to ENTER DEFAULT against
Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Any further proceedings related to
the entry of default, default judgment, or the amount of damages shall be referred to the Magistrate
Judge to whom this case was previously assigned.
As to Allied’s motion for partial summary judgment, 1 in light of the Court’s ruling on the
entry of default, this motion is hereby TERMINATED AS MOOT. As stated, any further
proceedings related to this matter should be directed to the Magistrate Judge to whom this case
will be reassigned.
The Court does not take up Allied’s motion for a preliminary injunction because it withdrew that
motion in its objections to the R&R. ECF No. 52 at 5.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 3, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?