Facts
- Enerkon Solar International, Inc. failed to comply with court orders, leading to the dismissal of its securities fraud complaint for want of prosecution [lines="22-23"].
- Counterclaimants Sea Friends, Inc. and Michael Studer sought to amend the judgment to include a monetary award related to their counterclaims against Enerkon [lines="25-27"].
- The court awarded counterclaimants damages of $1,609,836.05 on January 18, 2023, and instructed them to file a proposed amended judgment [lines="29-33"].
- Enerkon changed its name to New Technology Acquisition Holdings, Inc. during litigation but did not notify the court [lines="48-49", "110-111"].
- Counterclaimants filed a motion to correct the judgment to reflect Enerkon's new name and address a scrivener's error regarding the interest rate [lines="50-53"].
Issues
- Whether the court can amend its prior judgment to reflect Enerkon's new name as New Technology Acquisition Holdings, Inc. [lines="90-91"].
- Whether the court erred in identifying the correct post-judgment interest rate due to a scrivener’s error in the original judgment [lines="126-128"].
Holdings
- The court granted the amendment to include Enerkon's new name in the judgment, as the amendment did not pertain to the merits of the case [lines="124"].
- The court corrected the post-judgment interest rate to approximately 4.75%, as the original figure contained a scrivener’s error [lines="160"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 6:23-cv-01289-DCC Date Filed 04/29/24 Entry Number 74 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Quinteris Zy’Quan Miller, ) Case No. 6:23-cv-01289-DCC
)
Plaintiff, )
) v. ) ORDER
)
Dr. Nicholson, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On December 21, 2023, Defendant file a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 63. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 66. On February 26, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted. ECF No. 71. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber , 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
6:23-cv-01289-DCC Date Filed 04/29/24 Entry Number 74 Page 2 of 2 Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citation omitted)).
As noted above, Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. Upon review for clear error, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The motion for summary judgment [63] is GRANTED .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge April 29, 2024
Spartanburg, South Carolina
2