The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation, No. 2:2020cv00351 - Document 281 (E.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 275 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Roderick C. Young on 6/14/22. (jhie, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation Doc. 281 Case 2:20-cv-00351-RCY-LRL Document 281 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 6316 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC., ) Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) ) v. ) ) TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, ) Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) CHENG-CHUNG WANG, ) Counter-Plaintiff. ) ) Civil Action No. 2:20CV351 (RCY) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter, which was recently reassigned to the undersigned, is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard. (R&R, ECF No. 275.) The Court referred The Coleman Company’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees to Magistrate Judge Leonard because he has exclusively handled the parties’ relevant discovery disputes, which served as the basis for Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Accordingly, on May 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leonard entered the R&R wherein he recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The Court advised the parties that they could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the R&R. The parties did not file objections. “The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this [C]ourt. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this [C]ourt.” Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00351-RCY-LRL Document 281 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 6317 of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues – factual and legal – that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (footnote omitted). In the absence of a specific written objection, the Court may adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005). There being no objections, and the Court having determined that the R&R is correct on the merits, the R&R (ECF No. 275) will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. 1RUIRON, Virginia Date: June 1 , 2022 /s// Roderick C.. Young ng ng United States es District ctt Judge Jud uuddge 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.
