Big Red Box LLC v. Square Inc et al

Filing 87

AMENDED ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting the Magistrate Judges 73 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Defendant's 42 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/19/2019. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Big Red Box LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Square Inc.; William Tye Grisel;
Joe Grisel; G5 Marketing
Solutions LLC; and John Doe
Bank,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 3:18-cv-00758-JMC
AMENDED ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 73), filed on November 27, 2018, recommending that
Square Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 42)
be denied because there is a pending motion before the district court as to whether limited
discovery will be permitted prior to a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 66). (ECF No.
42.)
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 only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of
those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See
also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See

1

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).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 73 at 4.)
Neither party filed any objections to the Report.
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. (ECF No. 73.)
Therefore, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
73) and DISMISSES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42) without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

February 19, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

2