JPB Restaurant Group LLC v. Gringo's Cantina LLC et al

Filing 80

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 74 Report and Recommendation, granting 53 Motion for Summary Judgment as set out by JPB Restaurant Group LLC, Jacob Billingsley. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 5/9/24. (alew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JPB Restaurant Group LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Gringos Cantina LLC and Harold Dean )
White,
)
)
Defendants,
)
________________________________ )
)
Gringos Cantina LLC and Harold Dean )
White,
)
)
Counter-Claimants,
)
)
v.
)
)
Jacob Billingsley and JPB Restaurant )
Group LLC,
)
)
Counter-Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 6:21-cv-02943-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on JPB Restaurant Group LLC (“JPB”) and Jacob
Billingsley’s (“Billingsley”) Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 53. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). February 28, 2024, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted. ECF No. 57. The Magistrate
Judge advised Harold Dean White (“White”) of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. White has
not filed objections and the time to do so has lapsed.
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 recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s
recommendation. JPB and Billingsley’s Motion for Summary Judgment [53] is GRANTED
as to JPB’s claim for breach of contract against White and White’s counter claims against
JPB and Billingsley are dismissed with prejudice. JPB is entitled to judgment against
White for breach of contract for amount of the remaining balance, interest, and attorney's

fees, as called for in the Promissory Notes together with damages in the amount of any
unpaid regularly scheduled tax payments. Billingsley is entitled to attorneys’ fees and
costs incurred in bringing the Motion for Summary Judgment. JPB and Billingsley are
directed to file a bill of costs within 14 days. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 9, 2024
Spartanburg, South Carolina

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge

The Court notes that this action remains pending as to Defendant Gringos
Cantina LLC. Default has been entered as to this Defendant; however, no motion for
default judgment has yet been filed. Plaintiff is directed to file a motion for default
judgment or a stipulation of dismissal as to this Defendant within 14 days.
1