Tech Blast Inc et al v. Clark et al

Filing 74

ORDER adopting the 72 Report and Recommendation and granting Plaintiffs' 67 Motion for Final Judgment. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 11/27/2017. (bgoo)

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; Aaron Troy
)
Addison, an individual; Does 1 through 20,
)
inclusive; Fanatik Productions, LLC, a South
)
Carolina limited liability company; Thaddeus
)
W. Jones, Jr., an individual; Darren Smith, an
)
individual, doing business as D Smith
)
Consulting,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-02480-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiffs Tech Blast, Inc. and Visa Tech, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action for a final
judgment as to Defendants Fanatik Productions, LLC and Thaddeus W. Jones, Jr. (collectively,
“Defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiffs seek
the remainder of damages, $53,555.00 plus costs, stemming from two unauthorized wire transfers
from Plaintiffs’ business bank accounts.

(Id.)

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Judgment (ECF No. 67) be
granted. The Report and Recommendation, filed on November 13, 2017, sets forth the relevant
facts, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. (ECF No. 72.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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. The recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber,

1

423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 72 at 6.) However, neither party filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation within the prescribed time limits.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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
and Recommendation 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d
91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 72) and
incorporates it herein.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Judgment (ECF No. 67) is

GRANTED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
November 27, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

3