National Van Lines Inc v. National Van Lines Inc

Filing 62

ORDER adopting 57 Report and Recommendation; granting 45 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 5/17/2013.(hcic, )

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

National Van Lines, Inc.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
National Van Lines Inc., d/b/a National
)
Vanline Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No.: 4:12-926-TLW

ORDER
On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff, National Van Lines, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), filed this civil
action alleging claims against Defendant, National Van Lines Inc. (“Defendant”), for federal
trademark infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a); federal unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
federal trademark dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); cybersquatting, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1); and
violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20(a). (Doc.
#1). After the Defendant failed to provide the Court with current information, to retain new
counsel, and to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for
entry of default judgment.1 (Doc. #45). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
the default judgment motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West
for a Report and Recommendation.
Although Plaintiff styled its motion as a “Motion for Entry of Default” and cites to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(a) in the Motion, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of the Motion for
Entry of Default seeks entry of default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55(b).
(Docs. # 45; #45-1 at 6). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Clerk of Court previously entered default
pursuant to Rule 55(a) in response to Plaintiff’s “Request for Entry of Default.” (Docs. #41, 43). Thus,
the Court construes Plaintiff’s pending Motion, (Doc. #45), as a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55(b), (see Doc. #49).
1

1

This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West. In her Report, (Doc.
#57), Magistrate Judge West recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment, as detailed below. Neither party filed objections to the Report. Notably, the Defendant
has not objected to the relief recommended by the Magistrate Judge in the Report.2
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a party specifically objects and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. No objections have
been filed to the Report. 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).
A review of the record indicates that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the
applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that
the Report, (Doc. #57), is ACCEPTED and, without objection by Defendant, Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment, (Doc. #45), is GRANTED as outlined in the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

May 17, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2

The Report and Recommendation was mailed by regular and certified mail to Defendant’s last known address on
March 25, 2013, and was returned as undeliverable on April 8, 2013. (See Docs. #58, 59).

2