UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WELCH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:24CV1028
)
TOMMY BRADLEY WELCH 	)
d/b/a TBW CATTLE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge.
In 	this 	action, 	Plaintiff 	United 	States 	of 	America 	(the
“United 	States”) 	seeks 	forfeiture 	of 	civil 	penalties 	for 	alleged
violations 	of 	the 	Packers 	and 	Stockyards 	Act, 	7 	U.S.C. 	§ 	181 	et
seq. 	Before 	the 	court 	is 	the 	United 	States’ 	motion 	for 	summary
judgment 	pursuant 	to 	Rule 	56 	of 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure. 	(Doc. 	7.) 	Defendant 	Tommy 	Bradley 	Welch 	d/b/a 	TBW
Cattle (“Welch”) has not filed a response and has been warned that
failure 	to 	respond 	may 	result 	in 	an 	adverse 	decision 	without
hearing. 	(Doc. 	9.) 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the 	motion
will be granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Construed 	in 	the 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	Welch 	as 	the 	non-
moving 	party, 	the 	undisputed 	facts 	in 	the 	record 	show 	the
following:
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 8

2
From May 1, 2020, through July 17, 2020, Welch was engaged in
the 	buying 	and 	selling 	of 	livestock. 	(Doc. 	8-4 	at 	4, 	¶ 	3.) 	On
June 	23, 	2016, 	he 	entered 	into 	a 	Consent 	Decision 	and 	Order 	(the
“2016 	Order”) 	with 	the 	United 	States 	Department 	of 	Agriculture
(“USDA”) before the Secretary of Agriculture, wherein he admitted
the 	jurisdictional 	allegations 	and 	that 	the 	Secretary 	of
Agriculture 	had 	jurisdiction 	over 	the 	matter. 	(Doc. 	8-2.) 	The
2016 	Order 	found 	that 	Welch, 	while 	not 	registered 	as 	a 	“dealer”
under 	the 	Packers 	and 	Stockyards 	Act, 	was 	nevertheless 	operating
subject to its provisions. 	(Id. at 2.) 	Welch was ordered to cease
and desist from failing to pay, when due, the full purchase price
of 	livestock, 	to 	pay 	a 	$10,000 	civil 	penalty, 	and 	to 	apply 	for
registration 	with 	the 	Secretary 	of 	Agriculture. 	(Id. 	at 	2-3.)
Welch 	subsequently 	paid 	the 	$10,000 	civil 	penalty 	and 	registered
as 	a 	dealer 	with 	the 	Secretary 	of 	Agriculture. 	(See 	id. 	at 	6;
Doc. 8-3 at 3.)
On 	June 	25, 	2019, 	a 	default 	decision 	and 	order 	(the 	“2019
Order”) was entered in favor of the USDA against Welch before the
Secretary 	of 	Agriculture. 	(Doc. 	8-3). 	The 	2019 	Order 	again
ordered 	Welch 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	failing 	to 	pay, 	when 	due,
the 	full 	purchase 	price 	of 	livestock, 	and 	to 	pay 	a 	$39,000 	civil
penalty.1 	(Doc. 	8-3 	at 	4-5.) 	Welch 	was 	served 	with 	a 	copy 	of
1 The United States alleges that the $39,000 civil penalty remains unpaid.
(Doc. 1 at 8, ¶ 16.) 	However, it does not offer evidence of this fact
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 8

3
the 2019 Order in August 2019. (Doc. 8-4 at 6, ¶ 16).
On December 6, 2024, the United States filed its complaint in
the present action. 	(Doc. 1.) 	The complaint alleges that between
May 	1, 	2020, 	and 	July 	17, 	2020, 	Welch 	issued 	late 	payments 	for
livestock in 30 transactions totaling $867,212.14, in violation of
7 U.S.C. § 228(b) and the previous cease and desist orders entered
against 	him. 	(Id. 	at 	12, 	¶¶ 	23-24.) 	The 	United 	States 	seeks 	a
judgment 	for 	the 	recovery 	of 	forfeitures 	in 	the 	total 	amount 	of
$58,386 pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 215. 	(Id. at 12-13, ¶ 25.)
Welch, 	proceeding 	pro 	se, 	responded 	with 	an 	undated 	letter
postmarked 	January 	6, 	2025, 	which 	was 	filed 	as 	his 	answer 	to 	the
complaint on January 10, 2025. 	(Doc. 4; see Doc. 4-1.) 	On January
31, 	2025, 	the 	United 	States 	served 	Welch 	with 	requests 	for
admissions 	via 	certified 	mail. 	(Doc. 	8-4 	at 	3-18, 	¶¶ 	1-29.)
Service 	was 	accepted 	by 	Vicki 	Welch 	at 	Welch’s 	address 	of 	record
on 	February 	6, 	2025. 	(See 	id. 	at 	1-2, 	¶¶ 	3-4.) 	Welch 	did 	not
timely serve the United States with a response to the requests for
admissions 	(id. 	at 	2, 	¶ 	5), 	which 	are 	therefore 	deemed 	admitted,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).
On 	May 	12, 	2025, 	the 	United 	States 	filed 	the 	present 	motion
for 	summary 	judgment 	along 	with 	a 	supporting 	memorandum. 	(Docs.
7, 8.) 	On the same day, copies of the motion and memorandum were
or 	seek 	forfeiture 	of 	the 	unpaid 	2019 	penalty 	in 	this 	action.
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 8

4
served 	to 	Welch 	via 	first 	class 	mail, 	along 	with 	a 	“Roseboro”2
letter 	notifying 	him 	that 	failure 	to 	respond 	to 	this 	dispositive
motion within 30 days might result in entry of an adverse judgment.
(Doc. 7 at 3; Doc. 8 at 14; Doc. 9.)
Service 	of 	the 	present 	motion 	was 	completed 	upon 	mailing 	on
May 	12, 	2025. 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	5(b)(2)(C). 	Welch’s 	response 	was
due 	within 	30 	days 	of 	service, 	that 	is, 	on 	June 	11, 	2025. 	L.R.
56.1(d). 	Because 	Welch 	has 	failed 	to 	respond 	timely, 	the 	motion
is uncontested and ready for decision. 	Id.
II. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows “that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is 	entitled 	to 	judgment 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
56(a); see 	Celotex 	Corp. 	v. 	Catrett, 	477 	U.S. 	317, 	322–23, 	325
(1986). 	For 	the 	purposes 	of 	this 	motion, 	the 	court 	draws 	all
inferences in favor of Welch as the non-moving party. 	See Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Here, 	Welch 	has 	failed 	to 	respond 	to 	the 	United 	States’s
motion for summary judgment. 	Under the court’s Local Rule 7.3(k),
“[t]he failure to file a brief or response within the time period
specified 	in 	this 	rule 	shall 	constitute 	a 	waiver 	of 	the 	right
2 Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 8

5
thereafter 	to 	file 	such 	brief 	or 	response, 	except 	upon 	a 	showing
of 	excusable 	neglect.” 	Where 	there 	is 	such 	a 	failure, 	the 	rule
provides 	further 	that 	“the 	motion 	will 	be 	considered 	and 	decided
as 	an 	uncontested 	motion, 	and 	ordinarily 	will 	be 	granted 	without
further notice.” 	L.R. 7.3(k).
However, because even an unopposed dispositive motion must be
supported 	by 	the 	record, 	the 	court 	must 	satisfy 	itself 	that 	the
motion 	is 	warranted. 	See 	Robinson 	v. 	Wix 	Filtration 	Corp. 	LLC,
599 F.3d 403, 409 n.8 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[I]n considering a motion
for summary judgment, the district court ‘must review the motion,
even if unopposed, and determine from what it has before it whether
the 	moving 	party 	is 	entitled 	to 	summary 	judgment 	as 	a 	matter 	of
law.’”) (quoting Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416
(4th 	Cir. 	1993); 	accord 	Gardendance, 	Inc. 	v. 	Woodstock
Copperworks, 	Ltd., 	230 	F.R.D. 	438, 	449 	(M.D.N.C. 	2005) 	(“As 	with
summary 	judgment 	motions, 	a 	court 	does 	not 	grant 	a 	motion 	for
dismissal 	merely 	because 	it 	is 	uncontested. 	Rather, 	a 	district
court should review a motion to dismiss on its merits to determine
whether the pleadings are sufficient.”).
B. 	The United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment
The Packers and Stockyards Act provides that a dealer “shall,
before 	the 	close 	of 	the 	next 	business 	day 	following 	the 	purchase
of 	livestock 	. 	. 	. 	deliver 	to 	the 	seller 	or 	his 	duly 	authorized
representative 	the 	full 	amount 	of 	the 	purchase 	price.” 	7 	U.S.C.
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 8

6
§ 	228b(a). 	The 	parties 	to 	a 	purchase 	can 	agree 	to 	postpone
payment, but such agreement must be in writing. 	See id. § 228b(b).
Any delay extending the period of payment is considered an “unfair
practice” 	under 	the 	Packers 	and 	Stockyards 	Act. 	See 	id. 	§§
228b(c), 213(a).
The 	Secretary 	of 	Agriculture 	may 	issue 	an 	order 	directing 	a
dealer 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	unfair 	practices 	in 	violation 	of
§ 213. 	Id. § 213(b). 	Any dealer who knowingly fails to obey such
an 	order 	shall 	forfeit 	to 	the 	United 	States 	a 	sum 	of 	$500 	per
offense, 	which 	may 	be 	recovered 	in 	a 	civil 	action. 	Id. 	§ 	215.
Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,
as amended, civil penalties are regularly adjusted for inflation.
See 	28 	U.S.C. 	2461 	note 	(Federal 	Civil 	Penalties 	Inflation
Adjustment); see also 7 C.F.R. § 3.91(a)(1)) (setting forth current
adjusted penalties for violations of Title 7, United States Code).
During the period between May 1, 2020, and June 16, 2020, the
effective 	adjusted 	penalty 	for 	each 	violation 	of 	7 	U.S.C. 	§ 	215
was 	$1,913. 	See 	Civil 	Monetary 	Penalty 	Inflation 	Adjustment 	for
2018, 83 Fed. Reg. 11129, 11132 (Mar. 14, 2018). 	On June 17, 2020,
the adjusted penalty for each violation 	increased to $1,996. 	See
Adjusted Civil Monetary Penalties, 85 Fed. Reg. 36670, 336688 (June
17, 2020).
Here, 	Welch 	was 	a 	“dealer” 	subject 	to 	the 	Packers 	and
Stockyards Act during the period between May 1, 2020, and July 17,
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 8

7
2020. 	(Doc. 	8-4 	at 	4, 	¶ 	3.; 	see 	7 	U.S.C. 	§ 	201(d) 	(“The 	term
‘dealer’ means any person . . . engaged in the business of buying
or selling in commerce livestock, either on his own account or as
the employee or agent of the vendor or purchaser.”).) 	During that
time, 	Welch 	failed 	to 	pay 	the 	purchase 	price 	of 	livestock 	before
close 	of 	business 	on 	the 	following 	day 	on 	30 	separate 	occasions.
(Doc. 8-1 at 2-3, ¶ 8; Doc. 8-4 at 7-16, ¶¶ 17-29.) 	In his answer,
Welch represents that he had verbal agreements with the stockyards
at the time of these purchases regarding the payments. 	(Doc. 4 at
1.) 	However, 	such 	agreements 	must 	be 	in 	writing 	to 	avoid
liability. 	7 U.S.C. § 228b(b). 	Thus, the court finds that Welch
failed 	to 	timely 	pay 	the 	purchase 	price 	of 	livestock 	on 	each 	of
the 	30 	occasions 	alleged 	in 	the 	complaint, 	an 	unfair 	practice 	in
violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 228b and 213.
Welch 	was 	on 	notice 	of 	the 	2016 	Order 	and 	the 	2019 	Order,
both 	of 	which 	ordered 	him 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	failing 	to
timely pay the purchase price for livestock. 	(See Doc. 8-2 at 2-
3; 	Doc. 	8-3 	at 	4; 	Doc. 	8-4 	at 	6, 	¶¶ 	14-16.) 	Thus, 	each 	untimely
payment 	was 	also 	a 	violation 	of 	7 	U.S.C. 	§ 	215, 	insofar 	as 	Welch
knowingly 	failed 	to 	obey 	the 	2016 	Order 	and 	the 	2019 	Order. 	Of
the 30 violations, 18 occurred prior to June 17, 2020, carrying an
inflation-adjusted 	penalty 	of 	$1,913 	per 	violation 	for 	a 	partial
total 	of 	$34,434. 	(Doc. 	8-1 	at 	3, 	¶ 	11.) 	The 	remaining 	12
violations 	occurred 	on 	or 	after 	June 	17, 	2020, 	carrying 	an
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 8

8
inflation-adjusted 	penalty 	of 	$1,996 	per 	violation 	for 	a 	partial
total of $23,952 and a combined total of $58,386. 	(Id.)
In sum, the undisputed facts show that Welch, a dealer subject
to 	the 	Packers 	and 	Stockyards 	Act, 	knowingly 	failed 	to 	obey 	the
USDA’s 	orders 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	unfair 	practices 	on 	30
occasions 	between 	May 	1, 	2020, 	and 	July 	17, 	2020, 	by 	failing 	to
timely pay the full purchase price of livestock.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff United States of America’s motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff United States of America
shall have and recover of Defendant Tommy Bradley Welch the sum of
$58,386.00, plus costs.
A judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this
order.
/s/ 	Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
January 9, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-01028-TDS-JLW Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 8