Filed: Dec. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON , District Judge . The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be granted. This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objecti
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON , District Judge . The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be granted. This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objectio..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be granted.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).1 No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, and plaintiff's motion for default judgment is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered against defendant Rotomotion, LLC in favor of plaintiff Arc Communications Co., Ltd. in the amount of Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six and 63/100 dollars ($99,656.63), together with interest to accrue from the date of judgment forward to the extent provided for and permitted by applicable law.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
