United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
JAMES A. WILSON, Plaintiff,
NATIONAL BIKERS ROUNDUP, INC.; COLUMBIA S.C. ROUNDUP COMMITTEE; ROZELL NUNN d/b/a R&R Enterprise and Rozell Nunn, individually; ALBERT BUTLER; and SHELDON MICKENS, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James A. Wilson (Plaintiff) filed this case as copyright
infringement action. The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting (1) Plaintiff's
motion for default judgment against Defendants National
Bikers Roundup, Inc. (NBR) and Columbia S.C. Roundup
Committee (CRC) be granted; (2) Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment against Defendant Rozell Nunn d/b/a R&R
Enterprise (R&R) and in his individual capacity (Nunn) be
granted; and (3) Plaintiff's request for a permanent
injunction against Defendants be granted. The Report was made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. §
Court need not conduct a de novo review, however, “when
a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [Magistrate
Judge's] proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Thus, the Court will
address each specific objection to the Report in turn. As
provided above, however, the Court need not-and will
not-address any arguments that fail to point the Court to
alleged specific errors the Magistrate Judge made in the
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 12, 2017, Nunn filed
his objections to the Report on June 5, 2017, and Plaintiff
filed his reply on June 19, 2017. The Court has reviewed
Nunn's objections, but holds them to be without merit.
Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
initial matter, neither NBR nor CRC filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation Plaintiff's motion
for default judgment be granted as to them. “[I]n the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need
not conduct a 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.'”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72
advisory committee's note). Moreover, a failure to object
waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Having carefully reviewed the
Report, the Court holds there is no clear error on the face
of the record, and the Court therefore adopts the Report as
it pertains to NBR and CRC and will grant Plaintiff's
motion for default judgment.
now to Nunn's objections, Nunn argues the Magistrate
Judge erred in recommending Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment be granted and contests the Magistrate
Judge's suggestion the Court award maximum statutory
damages. Nunn avers maximum statutory damages are
inappropriate here because he alleges a lack of willfulness
on his part. Nunn states he consistently and expressly denied
any knowledge the design provided belonged to Plaintiff or
that he lacked permission to print the design and points to
his pro se answer in support. The Court is unable to agree.
Nunn's objections, he fails to provide any evidentiary
support for his opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment. Rather, Nunn merely relies on the denials
contained in his responsive pleadings. It is well-established
once the party seeking summary judgment has shown summary
judgment to be appropriate, the opposing party may not rest
upon mere allegations or denials, but rather must, by
affidavits or other means permitted by the Rule, set forth
specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Here, Nunn utterly
fails to present anything beyond mere allegations or denials
in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Therefore, the Court will overrule Nunn's objections.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules
Nunn's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to NBR and CRC
is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
against R&R and Nunn is GRANTED. Further, the Court holds
Defendants liable for willful violation of Plaintiff's
copyright in the Wilson Design. As a result of such
violation, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff judgment against
Defendants for $12, 500 in reasonable attorneys' fees and
$150, 000 in statutory and enhanced damages, for a total
monetary award of $162, 500. This judgment shall be made
joint and several against Defendants collectively.
addition, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiff's
request for a permanent injunction is GRANTED. Defendants are
hereby prohibited from further copying, use, or distribution
of the Wilson Design and are required to destroy any shirt,