Whitesell Funeral Home Inc v. Bryant-Grant Funeral Home LLC et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 21 Report and Recommendation to distribute funds and dismiss Plaintiff Whitesell Funeral Home Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/28/2016. (asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Whitesell Funeral Home, Inc.,
Bryant-Grant Funeral Home, Wayne
Bryson, Diane Moss, Denise Williams,
and Trisha Bigham,
Civil Action No. 0:15-cv-4237-TLW
Plaintiff Whitesell Funeral Home, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) brought this interpleader action on
October 15, 2015, claiming it did not have an interest in the proceeds of a life insurance policy that
it received, Policy No. 400339976 (the “Policy”). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asserted in the action that
Defendants Bryant-Grant Funeral Home, LLC, Wayne Bryson (“Wayne”), Diane Moss (“Moss”),
Denise Williams (“Williams”), and Trisha Bigham (“Bigham”) (collectively “Defendants”) all
have or may have claims to the funds. Id. On November 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
deposit the Policy proceeds into the court, ECF No. 6, which was granted by Order on May 5,
2016, ECF No. 13. In that Order, Defendants were directed to respond to interrogatories by June
6, 2016, and advised that failure to return the completed interrogatory form would result in a
recommendation that they not receive any of the Policy funds. Id. Despite the Court’s instructions,
only Defendants Wayne, Williams, and Bigham responded claiming an interest in the funds. ECF
Nos. 17-19. 1
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had
Defendant Bryant-Grant Funeral Home responded claiming no interest in the funds and requesting that it
be dismissed from the action. ECF No. 20.
previously been assigned. ECF No. 21. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
funds be distributed equally to Defendants Wayne, Williams, and Bigham. Id. The Report also
recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s request to be dismissed from this action. Id. Objections
to the Report were due on December 9, 2016, however, there were no objections filed by any party
to the case. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge=s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C.
' 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, 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 has carefully reviewed the Report and relevant filings, and notes that no answers
to the complaint or objections to the Report have been filed in this case. 2 For the reasons articulated
by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge=s Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 21, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff Whitesell Funeral Home, Inc. is hereby
DISMISSED and the Policy funds are directed to be distributed consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Chief United States District Judge
December 28, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
The Court has carefully reviewed the filings in this case and concludes that the Decedent’s marital status
has no impact on the issue of whether the Court should distribute the funds in accordance with the Report.
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?