Moxhet v. Telstar Cable Communications Inc et al

Filing 97

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 93 ) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendants' motion to set aside default (ECF No. 75 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/15/2014. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
PATRICK MOXHET, ANTHONY
JOHNSON, DANNY JOHNSON and
JAMES
KEITT,
Plaintiffs,
v.

TELSTAR CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., and DAWN COLLINS and JAMES
COLLINS, Individually,
Defendants.
_________________________________

) Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-896-BHH
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 93)
of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West recommending that the defendant
Telstar Cable Communications Inc.’s motion to set aside entry of default (ECF No. 75) be
granted. After carefully reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in full.
On August 22, 2014, Defendant Telstar Cable Communications, Inc. (“the
defendant”) filed a motion to set aside entry of default. (ECF Nos. 75, 80.) The plaintiffs
Patrick Moxhet, Anthony Johnson, Danny Johnson and James Keitt (“the plaintiffs”) filed
a response in opposition (ECF No. 83), and the defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 86). On
November 20, 2014, Magistrate Judge West issued a Report recommending that the
defendant’s motion to set aside default be granted because, inter alia, there is no showing
of prejudice to the plaintiffs other than delay in the prosecution of the lawsuit. (ECF No. 93
at 5.). The plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on December 8,

2014.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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”)
(citation omitted).
After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the
Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 93) by reference
into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to set aside default
(ECF No. 75) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 15, 2014

-2-