Slep Tone Entertainment Corporation v. Kelly et al
Filing
126
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 119 Report and Recommendation, denying 36 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, denying 46 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, denying 47 Motion to Dismiss, granting 113 Motion to Dismiss, and granting 115 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/21/2014. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jeremy Kelly d/b/a DJ Slinky d/b/a Kelly
Entertainment; William Jackson d/b/a Laser Chicken
Karaoke; Linda Y. Love d/b/a Red Eyed Karaoke;
Johnny D. Gentry d/b/a Ride Te Tide Entertainment;
Linda Carr d/b/a Linda’s Carraoke; Shelly Omeara
d/b/a DJ Shelly; Ozzie’s Country Island, LLC;
Shooter’s Grill & Pub, Inc.; Delaney’s Music Pub &
Eatery, Inc., and Sato Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________
.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.: 3:13-2071-MGL
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against the
named defendants alleging claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violation of
the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. (ECF No. 1.) The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending
that motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Linda Y. Love d/b/a Red Eyed Karaoke; Shelly Omeara
d/b/a DJ Shelly (pro se); and Shooter’s Grill & Pub, Inc. be denied (ECF Nos. 36, 46, & 47), and
Plaintiff’s motions to voluntarily dismiss its claims against Defendants William Jackson d/b/a Laser
Chicken Karaoke; Delaney’s Music Pub & Eatery, Inc.; Sato Enterprises, Inc.; and Linda Carr d/b/a
Linda’s Carraoke be granted. (ECF Nos. 113 & 115.) The July 31, 2014 Report was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
(ECF No. 119.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 119 at 7.) No objections were filed, and the time for doing so expired on August 18, 2014.
In the absence of a timely filed 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report.
Therefore, the motions to dismiss filed by
Defendants Linda Y. Love d/b/a Red Eyed Karaoke; Shelly Omeara d/b/a DJ Shelly (pro se); and
Shooter’s Grill & Pub, Inc. are DENIED (ECF Nos. 36, 46, & 47), and Plaintiff’s motions to
voluntarily dismiss its claims against Defendants William Jackson d/b/a Laser Chicken Karaoke;
Delaney’s Music Pub & Eatery, Inc.; Sato Enterprises, Inc.; and Linda Carr d/b/a Linda’s Carraoke
are GRANTED. (ECF Nos. 113 & 115.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
August 21, 2014
Spartanburg, 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?