Beard et al v. Adiz LLC et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 127 Report and Recommendations, dismissing Third-Party Defendant Robert Renew d/b/a Renew Siding without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/31/2011. (jpet, ) (Main Document 139 replaced on 9/1/2011) (asni, ). Modified to replace order at the request of chambers to remove language referring case to magistrate on 9/1/2011 (asni, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) C/A No. 1:10-2202-MBS-PJG
Adiz, LLC; ATC Development Corp.; ATC )
Mulherin Lumber Company; Hoover
Trusses Inc.; Duck & Son, Inc.; Robert
Renew dba Renew Siding,
On July 20, 2010, Plaintiffs Derith P. Beard, Sara W. Barrineau, and Amela Porca-Malkic1
filed an Amended Summons and Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for Aiken County, South
Carolina, alleging various products liability claims relating to defects in their residences. Notice of
Removal at 2, 5, ECF No. 1. Defendants Adiz, LLC (“Adiz”); ATC Development Corp.; and ATC
Construction, LLC timely removed the case to the District of South Carolina. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., on November 10, 2010, this action was
At this time, the only remaining plaintiff is Amela Porca-Malkic.
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett.
On September 3, 2010, Adiz filed a Third-Party Complaint against Robert Renew dba Renew
Siding (“Renew Siding”) and three other parties. Third Party Complaint, ECF No. 13. During a
status conference held before the Magistrate Judge on August 3, 2011, counsel for Adiz stated that
Renew Siding had not been served with process and that no further service attempts would be made.
See Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge at 1-2, ECF No. 127. All parties consented
to dismissal of Renew Siding as a party. Id.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Third-Party
Defendant Renew Siding should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m). No party objected to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.
The court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Third-Party Defendant Robert Renew dba
Renew Siding is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret B. Seymour
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 31, 2011
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?