Richardson v. William Sneider and Associates, LLC et al, No. 4:2012cv00025 - Document 19 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 4 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 15 Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 Report and Recommendations; the plaintiff's Motion for Default J udgment against William Sneider and Associates, LLC is GRANTED for Counts I through VI; the plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Count VII is GRANTED; judgment is ENTERED in favor of Victoria Richardson, the plaintiff, and against William S neider and Associates, LLC, in the amount of $9,387.50, plus interest at the rate of judgment from the date of the final judgment until entry of judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the plaintiff to this effect. Plaintiff seeks taxable costs of $380.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1924 and Local Civil Rule 54(D). Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve William Sneider said bill of costs within eleven (11) days from the entry of judgment, so that defendant may have an opportunity to object. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 8/14/12. (jcow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richardson v. William Sneider and Associates, LLC et al UNITED Doc. 19 FILED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division AUG 1 4 2012 CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK. VA VICTORIA RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, ACTION NO. v. 4:12cv25 WILLIAM SNEIDER AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant. FINAL ORDER This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 4), filed on April 5, 2012. was referred April § 18, to a 2012, 636(b)(1)(B) United States pursuant to and Federal Magistrate the Rule of Judge provisions Civil The matter by of Procedure Order 28 of U.S.C. 72(b), to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, if necessary, and to submit to the undersigned proposed findings of fact, if applicable, and recommendations for the disposition of the motion. The plaintiff filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Count Seven (ECF No. 15), on July 6, 2012, which is also now ripe for decision. The United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was filed on July 24, 2012. (ECF No. 18.) The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment for Counts I through VI, granting plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dockets.Justia.com Dismiss Count VII, and that default judgment be entered against the defendant, William Sneider and Associates, LLC ("William Sneider"). By copy of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the parties were advised of their right to file written objections thereto. magistrate The court has received no objections to the judge's report filing same has expired. and recommendation, and the time for The court does hereby adopt and approve in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed July 24, 2012. Accordingly, the plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against William Sneider and Associates, LLC is GRANTED for Counts I through VI; the plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Count VII is GRANTED; Richardson, the judgment is plaintiff, ENTERED and in against favor William of Victoria Sneider and Associates, LLC, in the amount of $9,387.50, plus interest at the rate of judgment from the date of the final judgment until entry of judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the plaintiff to this effect. Plaintiff seeks taxable costs of $380.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1924 Recommendation 32. said bill of costs and Local Civil Rule 54(D). See Report & Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve William Sneider within eleven (11) days from the entry judgment, so that defendant may have an opportunity to object. of The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Final Order to the parties. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Rebecca Beach Smith United States District Judge -£j©rREBECCA BEACH SMITH CHIEF UNITED STATES Newport News, Virginia August \U , 2012 DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
