Golden v. Google LLC, No. 6:2021cv00244 - Document 44 (D.S.C. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 39 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 4/19/2023.(abuc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Golden v. Google LLC6:21-cv-00244-JD Date Filed 04/19/23 Entry Number 44 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Larry Golden, Plaintiff, vs. Google, LLC, Defendant. Case No.: 6:21-cv-00244-JD-KFM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1 (DE 39.) On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff Larry Golden (“Plaintiff” or “Golden”), proceeding pro se, brought this action asserting patent infringement by the Defendant Google, LLC “Defendant” or “Google”) on Patents 10,163,287 (‘287 patent); 9,589,439 (‘439 patent); and 9,096,189 (‘189 patent), which are entitled “multi sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system.” (DE 1; 1-1; 1-2; 1-3.) On April 9, 2021, the Report was issued recommending that the matter be dismissed. (DE 14.) On November 2, 2021, this Court issued an Order adopting the report and dismissing the case. (DE 21.) The Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Plaintiff’s allegations were not facially frivolous and remanding the case to this Court for further proceedings. (DE 33.) 1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 6:21-cv-00244-JD Date Filed 04/19/23 Entry Number 44 Page 2 of 2 The Report was issued on November 14, 2022, recommending Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because “it is duplicative of proceedings pending in Case Number [4:22-cv-05246-HSG] in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.” (DE 39, p. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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). Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report (DE 39) and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge April 19, 2023 Florence, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
