West Shore Home, LLC v. Wenz

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:21-CV-00107-M

WEST SHORE HOMES, LLC, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER NEIL WENZ, et al., Defendants. a) This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's renewed motion for default [DE 80] and earlier motion for sanctions and to compel discovery responses [DE 64]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II entered a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) [DE 82] as to both motions on May 16, 2021. Magistrate Judge Numbers recommends that the court enter a default judgment against Defendants. See DE 82 at 4-6. In light of this recommendation, Magistrate Judge Numbers also recommends that the court deny the motion for sanctions and to compel discovery responses. See id. at 7 (explaining that the recommended entry of default judgment would render moot the remaining discovery issues and make further sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees unjust). Finally, the M&R noted that any objections must be filed in writing within 14 days. See id. Typically, a magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. 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). “The district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, see 28 U.S.C.A. §636(b)(1), and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 F. App’x 327, 330-31 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). The applicable June 6, 2022 deadline passed without either party filing objections. Upon careful review of the M&R and the entire record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's renewed motion for a default [DE 80] is GRANTED, and a judgment awarding default judgment against Defendants as a sanction will be entered contemporaneously in accordance with this order. Likewise, for the reasons stated in the M&R, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and to compel discovery responses [DE 64] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED this ik day of July, 2022. ia is Et RICHARD E, MYERS IL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE