Z-Man Fishing Products Inc et al v. Renosky et al

Filing 120

ORDER that the Court ADOPTS the 117 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and 110 Defendants' Motion for Interlocutory Appeal filed by Joseph F Renosky, Renosky Lure Inc is DENIED Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/19/2012. (sshe, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~O('. CLf.~.cgA~~rr Esr:lN SC
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
.. .. \..,
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Z-Man Fishing Products, Inc.; Holding
One, Inc.,

lOll SEP 20 A

~

... q

)
)

)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph F. Renosky; Renosky Fishing
Lures, Inc.
Defendants.

Civil Action No.2: 11-428-RMG

)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Defendants have moved before the Court for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of a
prior order of this Court (Dkt. No. 107) which made a claim construction of independent Claim 1
of U.S. Patent No. 7,726,062 (Hthe '062 Patent") and granted partial summary judgment to
Plaintiffs regarding the Defendants' infringement of the '062 Patent. (Dkt. No. 110). Plaintiffs
have opposed this motion, asserting that an interlocutory appeal in this matter will result in
"piecemeal" appellate review that will not promote judicial economy. (Dkt. No. 112). The Court
referred this motion to the Magistrate Judge, who filed a Report and Recommendation on August
13,2012 recommending that Defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal be denied. (Dkt. No.
117). No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge.
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to "make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge's report] ... to which specific objection is made." 28

-1­

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In the absence of a specific timely objection,
"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 & AccidentIns. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
Advisory Committee's note). A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations" of the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the
memoranda of the parties, and the controlling case law, and is satisfied that the Report and
Recommendation accurately and comprehensively addresses the issues raised by the motion and
appropriately concludes that the Defendants' motion should be denied. Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 117) as the order
of the Court and Defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal (Dkt. No. 110) is hereby DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

September fj, 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

-2­