Wilson v. National Bikers Roundup Inc. et al
ORDER adopting 57 Report and Recommendation; granting Plaintiff's 37 Motion for Default Judgment as to NBR and CRC; and granting Plaintiff's 38 Motion for Summary Judgment against R&R and Nunn. Further, the Court awards Plaintiff judgment against Defendants for $12,500 in reasonable attorneys' fees and $150,000 in statutory and enhanced damages, for a total monetary award of $162,500. This judgment shall be made joint and several aga inst Defendants collectively. In addition, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction is granted. Defendants are hereby prohibited from further copying, use, or distribution of the Wilson Design and are required to destroy any shirt, souvenir, data file, or other materials containing the Wilson Design. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 6/20/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
NATIONAL BIKERS ROUNDUP, INC.;
COLUMBIA SC ROUNDUP COMMITTEE; '
ROZELL NUNN d/b/a R&R Enterprise and
Rozell Nunn, individually; ALBERT
BUTLER; and SHELDON MICKENS,
JAMES A. WILSON,
Civil Action No. 3:15-04862-MGL-SVH
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff James A. Wilson (Plaintiff) filed this case as copyright infringement action. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United
States Magistrate Judge suggesting (1) Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendants
National Bikers Roundup, Inc. (NBR) and Columbia SC Roundup Committee (CRC) be granted;
(2) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Defendant Rozell Nunn d/b/a R&R Enterprise
(R&R) and in his individual capacity (Nunn) be granted; and (3) Plaintiff’s request for a permanent
injunction against Defendants be granted. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. '
636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1).
The Court need not conduct a de novo review, however, “when a party makes general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge’s]
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Thus, the Court will address each specific objection to the Report in
turn. As provided above, however, the Court need not—and will not—address any arguments
that fail to point the Court to alleged specific errors the Magistrate Judge made in the Report.
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 12, 2017, Nunn filed his objections to the
Report on June 5, 2017, and Plaintiff filed his reply on June 19, 2017. The Court has reviewed
Nunn’s objections, but holds them to be without merit.
Therefore, it will enter judgment
As an initial matter, neither NBR nor CRC filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted as to them. “[I]n 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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Having carefully
reviewed the Report, the Court holds there is no clear error on the face of the record, and the Court
therefore adopts the Report as it pertains to NBR and CRC and will grant Plaintiff’s motion for
Turning now to Nunn’s objections, Nunn argues the Magistrate Judge erred in
recommending Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted and contests the Magistrate
Judge’s suggestion the Court award maximum statutory damages.
Nunn avers maximum
statutory damages are inappropriate here because he alleges a lack of willfulness on his part.
Nunn states he consistently and expressly denied any knowledge the design provided belonged to
Plaintiff or that he lacked permission to print the design and points to his pro se answer in support.
The Court is unable to agree.
In Nunn’s objections, he fails to provide any evidentiary support for his opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Rather, Nunn merely relies on the denials contained in
his responsive pleadings. It is well-established once the party seeking summary judgment has
shown summary judgment to be appropriate, the opposing party may not rest upon mere allegations
or denials, but rather must, by affidavits or other means permitted by the Rule, set forth specific
facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Here, Nunn utterly fails to present anything beyond mere
allegations or denials in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the
Court will overrule Nunn’s objections.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court overrules Nunn’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to
NBR and CRC is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against R&R and
Nunn is GRANTED.
Further, the Court holds Defendants liable for willful violation of
Plaintiff’s copyright in the Wilson Design. As a result of such violation, the Court AWARDS
Plaintiff judgment against Defendants for $12,500 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and $150,000 in
statutory and enhanced damages, for a total monetary award of $162,500. This judgment shall be
made joint and several against Defendants collectively.
In addition, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction is
GRANTED. Defendants are hereby prohibited from further copying, use, or distribution of the
Wilson Design and are required to destroy any shirt, souvenir, data file, or other materials
containing the Wilson Design.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of June, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?