Taylor v. Cire LLC et al
Filing
80
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court accepts and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 74 ), by reference into this Order. It is therefore ordered that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32 ) is granted. Judgment is entered against the defendants in the amount of $113,688.78. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/19/2015. (prou, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
) Civil Action No.: 4:13-1711-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Cire, LLC and Eric J. Causey,
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
David T. Taylor,
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) (ECF No. 74) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers,
III, recommending that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32)
be granted and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff.
Because the defendants are now pro se,1 this case was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e).
Objections to the Report were due by January 30,
2015, and no objections have been filed by any party.
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 of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
1
An Answer (ECF No. 9) to the Amended Complaint was filed by Attorneys I. Ryan Neville and
Christy Ford Allen on behalf of the defendants Cire, LLC, and Eric J. Causey on October 15,
2013. A consent motion to withdraw as attorney (ECF No. 47), filed by the defendants’ attorneys,
was granted in a text order (ECF No. 49) on August 18, 2014. The defendants did not retain
additional counsel.
1
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Court
ACCEPTS and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 74), by reference into this
Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED. Judgment is entered against the defendants in the amount of
$113,688.78.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 19, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?