Capital Investment Funding LLC et al v. LOP Capital LLC et al

Filing 63

ORDER ACCEPTING 49 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Because the court remanded the Related Action back to state court, Plaintiffs' 6 Motion to Consolidate Cases is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/27/12. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Capital Investment Funding LLC,
Cosimo LLC,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LOP Capital LLC, Strategic Lending
)
Solutions, LLC, Michael Loprieno,
)
Brian Knight, Dennis Hackney, and
)
Michael Parish,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-03321-JMC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) [Doc. 49] filed on August 24, 2012.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate [Doc. 6] the instant case with another case pending in this
court, LOP Capital, LLC and Strategic Lending Solutions, LLC v. Cosimo, LLC, Capital
Investment Funding, LLC, and CIF Property Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 7:11-cv-03312JMC-KFM (“Related Action”), be denied as moot if the court accepted the recommendation to
remand the Related Action.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court.

The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with
1

instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
No party filed objections to the Report. Therefore, after careful review of the record, the
court ACCEPTS the Report. [Doc. 49]. Because the court remanded the Related Action back to
state court, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate [Doc. 6] is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
June 27, 2012

2