Michelin North America Inc v. Vehicular Testing Services LLC et al

Filing 118

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 116 Report and Recommendation. 72 Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/13/2016. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Michelin North America, Inc.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Vehicular Testing Services, LLC,
)
Marvin Foxworth, Doug Foxworth,
)
Theresa Santos, and American
)
Receivables Corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Vehicular Testing Services, LLC, Marvin )
Foxworth, Doug Foxworth,
)
)
Counter-Claimants,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Michelin North America, Inc.,
)
)
Counter-Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 6:15-1261-TMC-JDA

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964 alleging violations of the civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), fraud, constructive fraud, aiding and
abetting a fraud, conversion, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, quantum meruit, and violation
of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (“SCUTPA”).1 Defendants Vehicular Testing,
LLC, Marvin Foxworth, and Doug Foxworth filed a motion to transfer venue. (ECF No. 72).
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending
that the court deny Defendants’ motion to transfer venue. (ECF No. 116). The parties were advised
1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, DSC, this matter was
initially referred to a magistrate judge as Defendant Theresa Santos is proceeding pro se.

of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 116-1). However, no objections to the
Report have been filed, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of
objections to the 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).
After a thorough review, the court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the Report and
incorporates it herein by reference. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 72)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
September 13, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.