Tech Blast Inc et al v. Clark et al

Filing 57

ORDER adopting the 39 Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiffs' 38 amended motion to dismiss, and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Ruby K. Clark with prejudice. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 5/16/2017. (bgoo)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Tech Blast, Inc., a California Corporation; ) Visa Tech. Inc., a California Corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Lewis Clark, Jr., an individual; Ruby K. ) Clark, an individual; Aaron Troy Addison, ) an individual; Fanatik Productions, LLC, ) a South Carolina limited liability company; ) Thaddeus W. ) Jones , Jr., an individual; Darren Smith, an ) Individual, d/b/a D Smith Consulting; Does ) 1 through 20, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-02480-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 39), filed on March 14, 2017, recommending that Plaintiffs’ amended motion to dismiss their claims against Defendant Ruby K. Clark with prejudice (ECF No. 38) be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 39). However, neither party filed any objections to the Report. 1   In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39), GRANTS Plaintiffs’ amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Ruby K. Clark (ECF No. 1) with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge May 16, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina     2  

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?