White et al v. Parker et al
ORDER accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Steger's 224 Report and Recommendation regarding the Plaintiffs' 194 motion for default judgment. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 3/12/2018. (BJL, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
DEXTER W. WHITE, et al.,
GRANT PARKER, et al.,
Case No. 1:11-cv-294
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
On February 20, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed his
report and recommendation (Doc. 224) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Steger recommended that:
1. The motion for default judgment filed by Plaintiffs Dexter W. White, Wayne
Brantley, and David Hill and Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Grant Parker, Parker
White, LLC, and Colorscapes, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) (Doc. 194) be granted
and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants Cuauthomee
Burris, Able Title Insurance Company, Inc., Jo Ann Luna, Timothy Grossi, Gene
Nowack a/k/a Eugene Z. Nowak, and LaCoulton J. Walls (collectively
2. Damages be awarded to Plaintiffs from Defendants jointly and severally as follows:
a. $608,800.00 to Dexter W. White;
b. $20,000.00 to David Hill;
c. $255,000.00 to Wayne Brantley; and
d. $1,601,200.00 to Grant Parker, Park White, LLC, and Colorscapes, Inc.,
3. Post-judgment interest be awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
No party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation.1
Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the report and recommendation, as well as the
record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger’s well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly,
the Court will ACCEPT and ADOPT Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation
(Doc. 224) and GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Doc. 194).
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Magistrate Judge Steger specifically advised the parties that they had fourteen days in which to
object to the report and recommendation and that failure to do so would waive their right to
appeal. (Doc. 224, at 16 n.7); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
148–51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings”). Even taking into account the three additional
days for service provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), the period in which the parties
could timely file any objections has now expired.
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?