Davis v. Taylor et al
Filing
51
ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendations denying without prejudice 46 Motion ; 47 Motion ; 16 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; 26 Motion to Amend/Correct and ordering this case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/27/2013.(sshe, ) [Transferred from South Carolina on 3/27/2013.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Ronald Jefferson Davis, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Thomas Taylor, Jr., Naomi
Alazraki Taylor, Louis Richard Cohan,
Cohan Law Group, LLC, and,
John Does 1-5,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:12-2970-RMG
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that this Court deny without prejudice Defendants Lewis
Richard Cohen and Cohen Law Group, LLC's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) and order this
case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (Dkt.
No. 38). For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with and wholly adopts the R&R as
the order of the Court and orders this case be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.
Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on October 15, 2012, asserting thirteen
state law causes of action. (Dkt. No.1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) DSC, this case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge. Defendants Lewis Richard
Cohen and Cohen Law Group, LLC ("Defendants") then filed a motion to dismiss on December
21, 2012. (Dkt. No. 16). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion and in the
alternative a motion to transfer venue on February 7,2013. (Dkt. No. 32). Defendants then filed
a reply on February 19,2013. (Dkt. No. 36). On March 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an
R&R recommending the Court deny Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and order
the case be transferred. (Dkt. No. 38). Plaintiff then filed timely objections to the R&R. (Dkt.
No. 50).
Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modifY, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id
Discussion
After review of the record and the R&R, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge applied
sound legal principles to the facts of the case and therefore wholly adopts the R&R as the order
of the Court. (Dkt. No. 38). Plaintiff does not object to transfer of the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (Dkt. No. 50 at 2). Defendants apparently
argue against transfer only because Plaintiff did not file a proper motion for transfer. (Dkt. No.
36 at 8).
However, the Court may consider this issue sua sponte.
Magic Toyota, Inc. v.
Southeast Toyota Distribs., Inc., 784 F. Supp. 306, 321 (D.S.C. 1992). Therefore, for the reasons
expressed in the R&R, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and
transfers the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
2
Conclusion
The Court agrees with and wholly adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. (Dkt. No.
38). Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice all pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 16,26,46,
47) and orders this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark Ger
United States District Court Judge
March '1. / ,2013
Charleston, South Carolina
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?