Smith et al v. Progressive Insurance Company et al
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 15 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 10/6/17. (sfla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Samuel Leroy Smith and
Sarah Ann Phillips Smith,
Progressive Insurance Company,
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
Carl Nicholas Walker,
Laketia Natisha Boyd,
Lucille B. Walker,
C.A. No. 1:17-1767-HMH-KFM
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation 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 of the District of South Carolina.1 Samuel Leroy Smith and Sarah Ann Phillips
Smith (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, seek damages arising from a car accident on July 15,
2014. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends summarily
dismissing the above-captioned case without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim.
Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
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).
a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, 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).
Upon review, the court finds that the Plaintiffs’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to
the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate
their claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record
in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ complaint, docket number 1, is summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
October 6, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiffs are hereby notified that they have 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
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?