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; ROZELL NUNN, individually; ALBERT BUTLER; and SHELDON MICKENS, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS
MODIFIED, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 8, 2015, Plaintiff James A. Wilson (Plaintiff) filed
this copyright infringement action against Defendants
National Bikers Roundup Inc. (NBR), Columbia S.C. Roundup
Committee (CRC), Rozell Nunn, d/b/a R&R Enterprise
(R&R), and Rozell Nunn, individually (Nunn). ECF No. 1.
On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend
complaint seeking to add Albert Butler (Butler) and Sheldon
Mickens (Mickens) as Defendants. ECF No. 48. The Court
granted that motion, ECF No. 49, and Plaintiff filed his
amended complaint, ECF No. 51.
Order entered June 20, 2017, ECF No. 67, this Court adopted a
Report and Recommendation filed May 12, 2017, ECF No. 57.
That Order granted Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment as to NBR and CRC, and granted Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment as to R&R and Nunn. ECF No.
67. The Court held NBR, CRC, R&R, and Nunn liable for
willful violation of Plaintiff's copyright in the Wilson
Design and awarded Plaintiff $150, 000 in statutory and
enhanced damages, and $12, 500 in attorneys' fees against
NBR, CRC, R&R, and Nunn; the total judgment of $162, 500
was made joint and several against those Defendants
collectively. Id. Further, the Order granted
Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction; NBR, CRC,
R&R, and Nunn were prohibited from “further
copying, use, or distribution of the Wilson Design, and
[were] required to destroy any shirt, souvenir, data file, or
other materials containing the Wilson Design.”
Id. at 4. The Order did not address Defendants
Butler and Mickens.
matter is now before the Court for review of the second
Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge. Defendants Butler and Mickens are
proceeding pro se. The Report suggests:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against
Butler be granted;
(2) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against
Mickens be granted;
(3) summary judgment be entered against Defendants NBR, CRC,
R&R, Nunn, Butler, and Mickens (collectively Defendants),
and Defendants be found liable for willful violation of
Plaintiff's copyright in the Wilson Design;
(4) Plaintiff be awarded $150, 000 in statutory and enhanced
damages against Defendants, and judgment be made joint and
several against Defendants collectively;
(5) Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction be
granted, and Butler and Mickens be permanently enjoined from
further copying, use, or distribution of the Wilson Design,
and be required to destroy any shirt, souvenir, data file, or
other materials containing the Wilson Design; and
(6) Plaintiff be awarded $10, 000 in attorneys' fees
against Butler and Mickens, jointly and severally.
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
document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally
construed.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however, required to
“conjure up questions never squarely presented to
them” or seek out ...