Bank of North Carolina v. Motor Yacht Sea Hunt Official Number 939115

Filing 26

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 23 ). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 21 ) is DENIED. This action is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety and this case closed. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/6/2014. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA,
formerly doing business as
Beach First National Bank,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MOTOR YACHT “SEA HUNT”
(Official Number 939115), her engines,
bowspirit, anchor, cables, chains, rigging,
tackle, apparel, furniture, and all accessories
hereunto appertaining and belonging
to her, in rem,
Defendant.

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

Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-0893-TLW

ORDER
This is an Admiralty action which involves the foreclosure of a preferred ship mortgage
granted to Plaintiff on the motor yacht “SEA HUNT,” Official Number 939115 (“the Vessel”).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #23). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #21) be denied, that judgment be entered for
Plaintiff against the proceeds of the sale, and that the above-captioned action be dismissed. (See
Doc. #23). Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report. The deadline to file objections expired
on February 24, 2014. (See Doc. #23).

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and all other relevant filings and documents. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is
ACCEPTED. (Doc. #23). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #21)
is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment for the Plaintiff against the proceeds of the
sale in this matter. The above-captioned action is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety and this
case closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
Chief United States District Judge
March 5, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2