Opinion
CIVIL 2:23-CV-11
05-10-2024
ETHAN PUGH, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL SEAN COLEMAN, APRIL RILEY, STEVEN GRAHAM, and PAT RYAN, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 32] AND GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT [ECF NO. 16]
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff Ethan Pugh (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Michael Sean Coleman, April Riley, Steven Graham, and Pat Ryan. Plaintiff proceeded to file a motion for default judgment with respect to Defendant Coleman. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi (the “Magistrate Judge”). On April 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) construing the motion as a motion for default (as opposed to default judgment) and recommending that the Court grant it.
The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written objections identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to timely file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” Defendant Coleman accepted service of the R&R on April 19, 2024. To date, no objections have been filed.
When reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge's recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600, 603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 32]. The motion for default judgment, which is construed as a motion for default [ECF No. 16], is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default with respect to Defendant Coleman.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.