United States of America v. Brooks et al

Filing 138

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts in part 114 Report and Recommendation. The court adopts the portion of the magistrate judges Report that recommends that the Plaintiff be granted default judgment establishing that Defendant Coach Hills has no interest in, and can take nothing from, any sale of the property described in the complaint. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/16/2018. (gpre, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION United States of America, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Dennis Brooks, Barbara Brooks, ) Greenville County Tax Collector, ) Coach Hills Homeowner’s Association, Inc. ) South Carolina Department of Revenue, ) ) Defendant. ) Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-02010-TMC ORDER Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against Defendant Coach Hills Homeowner’s Association (“Coach Hills”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 114).i As noted by the magistrate judge, Defendant Coach Hills was served with the summons and complaint by delivery to its agent for service of process on August 16, 2017. (ECF No. 114, at 4, ECF No. 8-1, at 2). Coach Hills was required to answer or otherwise plead on or before September 6, 2017. However, this defendant has not appeared or filed responsive pleadings, and the Clerk has entered its default. (ECF No. 114, at 4). In her Report, the magistrate judge correctly stated the standard governing a motion for default judgement, (ECF No. 114, at 9, 10), and concluded that default judgment was warranted in this case. Defendant Coach Hills was notified of its right to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 114-1), but no objections were filed. The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270– 71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for 1 adopting the Report. 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set forth above, the court adopts the portion of the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 114) that recommends that the Plaintiff be granted default judgment establishing that Defendant Coach Hills has no interest in, and can take nothing from, any sale of the property described in the complaint. Accordingly, the Report (ECF No. 114) is adopted in part and only the Default Motion (ECF NO. 111) is GRANTED, as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina November 16, 2018 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. i Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment against Defendants Barbara and Dennis Brooks, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant Plaintiff summary judgment (ECF No. 114). The Brooks filed a motion in which they alleged that they did not receive a copy of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and requested additional time to respond. (ECF No. 119). The court granted the Brooks an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion and declined to adopt that part of the Report. (ECF No. 125). 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?