Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-CV-47
03-08-2024
TRUIST BANK, Plaintiff, v. FUSION TECHNOLOGY, LLC, JOHN BOTT, and SHARON R. PITSENBARGER Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [ECF NO. 11] BE DENIED AS MOOT
MICHAEL JOTN-ALGP UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to a Referral Order [ECF No. 14] entered by the Hon. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief United States District Judge, on November 7, 2023. Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Truist Bank (“Truist Bank”)'s Motion to Appoint Receiver and for Injunctive Relief [ECF No. 11].
The undersigned convened several Status Conferences, by videoconference, at which appeared counsel for Truist Bank, Michael S. Garrison, and counsel for Defendants Fusion Technology, LLC, John Bott, and Sharon R. Pitsenbarger (“Defendants”), Jeffrey M. Strange. After the continuous efforts of all parties to work towards a resolution, the parties, on this date, indicated to the undersigned that matters related to the above-noted motion have been resolved by agreement.
Accordingly, based upon the parties' representations, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Receiver and for Injunctive Relief [ECF No. 11] be DENIED as moot.
Any party shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation to file with the Clerk of the Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the presiding United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to timely file written objections to the Report and Recommendation as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record, as applicable, as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.