Samuel et al v. FIFA et al

Filing 208

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 197 Report and Recommendation, granting 166 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying as moot 164 MOTION that the case continue with trial or settlement, denying as moot [1 81] Motion for Hearing, denying as moot 186 Motion for Hearing, denying as moot 187 Motion for Settlement, denying as moot 191 Motion for Hearing, denying as moot 201 Motion for Damages. Signed by the Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 05/16/2013. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Loretta L. Samuel and William R. Samuel,

C/A No.: 3:11-cv-0423-JFA

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

ESPN, Inc.,
Defendant.

Plaintiffs Loretta L. Samuel and William R. Samuel, proceeding pro se, brought the
above-captioned copyright infringement action against numerous defendants, of which only
ESPN, Inc. remains. In general, Plaintiffs allege that the defendant infringed their copyright
during its coverage of the 2010 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World
Cup. The primary matter before this court is ESPN’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF
No. 166.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation that the court grant ESPN’s motion.2 See ECF No. 197. The Report and
Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation. Plaintiffs were advised of their right to file objections to
the Report and Recommendation, which was mailed to plaintiffs on March 6, 2013. However,
plaintiffs did not file any objections.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight,
and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific
objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2
 An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), notifying plaintiffs of the
summary judgment dismissal procedure and possible consequences if they failed to adequately respond to the
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs responded to the motion.

1

Instead, plaintiffs filed two documents—a “Motion for Statory [Sic] Damages,” ECF No.
201, and what appears to be their third response to ESPN’s motion for summary judgment, ECF
No. 204—both of which argue several very general aspects of copyright law and seek statutory
damages. Even were this court willing to overlook the untimeliness of these documents under
the scheduling order in this case and the Local Rules of this District, they in no way constitute
“specific” written objections to any portion of the Report and Recommendation. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b). Indeed, neither document even refers to the Report and Recommendation. In
other words, these documents appear to merely reassert many of the same arguments plaintiffs
initially made in response to ESPN’s motion for summary judgment. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing that a judge “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made”).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and
Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein
by reference in its entirety.

Accordingly, the court hereby grants ESPN’s motion for summary

judgment. In light of this ruling, the court also denies as moot all of the plaintiffs’ pending
motions for trial, hearings, settlement, and/or statutory damages. See ECF Nos. 164, 181, 186,
187, 191, & 201. This case is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 16, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2