Peterman v. RAMod Brewers, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina·Decided January 5, 2024·No. 4:21-cv-00156·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION Case No. 4:21-cv-00156-M

HAMPTON PETERMAN, Plaintiff, DEFAULT JUDGMENT RAMOD BREWERS, LLC; AARON AVERY; and. MATTHEW ROUSE, Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II [DE 48]. Judge Numbers recommends that this court grant Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [DE 42]. To date, no objections have been filed. The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . . . recommendation[] .. . receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Jd. § 636(b)(1). Without timely objection, de novo review is unnecessary, and a district court need only check for clear error on the face of the record to accept the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon careful review of the M&R and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated in the M&R, the motion [DE 42] is GRANTED. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: Default judgment is entered against Defendants on each of Plaintiff's claims; 2: Plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of $162,479.25, plus post-judgment interest; and a Plaintiff is awarded his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $51,813.00. SO ORDERED this ae. day of January, 2023. padoh Wide RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Peterman v. RAMod Brewers, LLC, (E.D.N.C. 2024).

Peterman v. RAMod Brewers, LLC (Peterman v. RAMod Brewers, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mathews v. Weber
423 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1976)