United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.
December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed this claim and delivery
action against the four above-captioned defendants: (1)
Hacienda Mesa, LLC, (2) Sergio R. Mesa, (3) CNH Capital
America, LLC, and (4) Deere & Company. See
Complaint [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff seeks judgment concerning
two promissory notes signed by Hacienda Mesa, LLC and Sergio
R. Mesa in which they agreed to pay Plaintiff (acting through
the United States Department of Agriculture) the principal
and interest on sums of $70, 000 and $52, 500. See
Prom. Notes [ECF Nos. 1-1 & 1-2].
R. Mesa, who is proceeding pro se, was the only defendant to
enter an appearance and respond to Plaintiff's complaint.
See ECF No. 9. On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff
obtained entries of default against CNH Capital America, LLC
and Deere & Company. See ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23
& 24. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment against the other two defendants: Hacienda
Mesa, LLC and Sergio Mesa. See ECF No. 40. On January 25,
2017, United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R &
R”) recommending that the Court grant in part
and deny in part Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment. R & R [ECF No. 51] at 1, 16. On
January 3, 2017 (within the time for filing objections),
Plaintiff filed a request seeking an entry of default against
Hacienda Mesa, LLC, and the Clerk entered the default on
February 14, 2017. See ECF Nos. 53, 54, & 55.
The matter is now before the Court for consideration of the R
& R and the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
concerning Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which
specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time
for doing so has expired. In the absence of objections to the R
& R, the Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir.
1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead
must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation'” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds
no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by
reference the Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 51],
except with respect to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation concerning Defendant Hacienda Mesa, LLC, which
is now in default. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART
AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment [ECF No. 40]. Specifically, the Court:
(1) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to
Sergio R. Mesa's liability;
(2) DISMISSES Sergio R. Mesa's counterclaims with
(3) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment against Hacienda Mesa, LLC because the Clerk has
entered default against Hacienda Mesa, LLC. Any judgment
against Hacienda Mesa, LLC should be sought under Federal
Rule of Procedure 55(b).
based on the record currently before it, the Court DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request for an order
awarding it possession of the secured collateral and
Plaintiff's request for an unspecified amount of
attorney's fees. The Court at this time DEFERS a ruling as
to damages and remedy as to all parties. Procedurally,
Plaintiff should now file a proper motion under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 55 regarding the relief it seeks, as
summary judgment has been entered against Sergio R. Mesa and
defaults entered against Hacienda Mesa, LLC, CNH Capital
America, LLC, and Deere & Company.
 As the Magistrate Judge explains in
more detail, Hacienda Mesa, LLC is the only party debtor
listed on the Security Agreement covering the collateral in
question (twenty-one pieces of farm equipment and sixteen
horses). See R & R at 6, 14-15. Sergio R. Mesa