Mollohan et al v. Price et al

Filing 137

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 133 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying without prejudice the 104 Motion to Cancel Trademark and 109 Motion to Cancel Trademark; and denying without prejudice the [1 10] Motion for Injunction against Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs for Trademark and Copyright Infringement; the Court leaves this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley for additional proceedings concerning the Claimants remaining claims. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 3/17/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

GERALD R. MOLLOHAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-32251

DONALD PRICE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are three motions by Plaintiffs Gerald R. Mollohan and Brothers
of The Wheel Motorcycle Club Nomads, Inc. and Counterclaim Defendant Frank J. Visconi
(together, the “Claimants”): Claimants’ Motion to Cancel Trademark, (ECF No. 104,) Claimants’
Motion to Cancel Trademark, (ECF No. 109), and Claimants’ Motion for Injunction against
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs for Trademark and Copyright Infringement, (ECF No. 110).
All of these motions have been construed as requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief with respect to the trademark and copyright infringement claims asserted in the operative
Amended Complaint.
On December 16, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane
L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”).
(ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed a PF&R, (ECF No. 133), in response to the instant
motions on February 25, 2016, recommending that this Court deny without prejudice each of the
Claimants’ motions.

The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation
to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file
timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s
Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on March 14, 2016. To date, no objections
have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 133), and DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Claimants’ Motions to Cancel Trademark, (ECF Nos. 104 and 109), and Claimants’
Motion for Injunction against Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs for Trademark and Copyright
Infringement, (ECF No. 110). The Court leaves this matter referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley
for additional proceedings concerning the Claimants’ remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

March 17, 2016