Get Joe's LLC et al v. Hangover Joe's Holding Corporation et al
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court accepts and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 37 ), by reference into this Order. It is therefore ordered that the plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 7 ) is denied, the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss (ECF No. 4 ) is granted, and this case is dismissed. All other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/4/2015. (prou, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
) Civil Action No.: 4:14-2626-BHH
Get Joe’s LLC, Christopher Rice, and )
Richard Ridgeway,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
OPINION AND ORDER
vs.
)
)
Hangover Joe’s Holding Corporation, )
Hangover Joe’s Inc., Hangover Joe’s )
Products, LLC, Michael Alan Jaynes, )
Brian Daniels, and Shawn Adamson, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) (ECF No. 37) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers,
III, recommending that the plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 7) be denied,
the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss (ECF No. 4) be granted,
and this case be dismissed.
Because the plaintiffs are pro se, this case was automatically 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
1
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). 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. 37), by reference into this
Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 7)
is DENIED, the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss (ECF No. 4)
is GRANTED, and this case is dismissed. All other pending motions are denied
as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 4, 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?