# Golden v. Google LLC

> District Court, D. South Carolina · April 19, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10429305

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** April 19, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10429305

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Larry Golden, ) Case No.: 6:21-cv-00244-JD-KFM
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER AND OPINION
Google, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
)

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, 270-
71 (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).
The Report was issued on November 14, 2022, recommending Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs Case is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
C Josep hassonae
Joseph Dawson, IT
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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10429305. Public record. Not legal advice.