Opinion
Case No. 2:08-cv-3845-RMG.
October 19, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The record includes the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
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). No objections have been filed to the magistrate's report.
Absent a timely objection from a dissatisfied party, a district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, a Magistrate Judge's factual or legal conclusions. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Wells v. Shriner's Hosp., 109 F.3d 198,201 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, because the defendant Mosaic Global Solutions, LLC did not file any specific, written objections, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R (Dkt. No. 49) as the Order of this Court, and it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 38) and her supplemental motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 40) are GRANTED. In light of this Order, docket entry number 41 is rendered moot. Further, in accordance with this Order and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate which has not been objected to, the answer of Mosaic Global Solutions, LLC is stricken and the clerk is directed to enter notice of default as to this party.
Moreover, Plaintiff is invited, within 30 days of today's date to refile a motion for damages with respect to Defendant Bass and Defendant Mosaic Global Solutions, LLC and any memorandum in support of thereof, including any affidavits pertaining to same. If the damages sought are not readily ascertainable and a hearing is needed for determination of damages in this matter, the Plaintiff may request a hearing after the filing of her motion and memorandum. Thus, docket entry number 23 is also mooted by this Order.
Defendant Stair does not appear to have answered but an entry of default has not been entered against him and no proof of service has been provided to this Court accompanied by an affidavit of default.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 19, 2010 Charleston, South Carolina