Stanfield v. CitiMortgage Inc

Filing 45

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 42 Report and Recommendations, granting 32 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by CitiMortgage Inc, and dismissing the case in accordance with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/13/2010. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA C H A R LE S T O N DIVISION D a v id D. Stanfield, ) ) C/A No. 2:09-2711-MBS P l a i n t i f f, ) ) v s. ) ORDER ) CitiMortgage, Inc., ) ) D e fe n d a n t . ) ____________________________________) P la in tiff David D. Stanfield, proceeding pro se, brought this action on October 19, 2009. P l a in t iff alleges that Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. improperly denied him a loan modification under th e Home Affordable Modification Program and that he has faced foreclosure in state court as a r e s u l t. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant discriminated against him in violation of the Equal Credit O p p o rtu n ity Act and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. . In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr for pretrial handling. On March 25, 2010, D e fe n d a n t filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. By order filed April 2, 2010, pursuant to R o s e b o ro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4 th Cir. 1975), the Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the a p p li c a b le procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Plaintiff file d a response in opposition to Defendant's motion on April 23, 2010, to which Defendant filed a re p ly on May 3, 2010, and Plaintiff filed a surreply on May 10, 2010. On July 16, 2010, the M a g i s t r a t e Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he noted that the purpose of P la in tiff's complaint is to seek relief from the underlying state court foreclosure action. Accordingly, t h e Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant's motion be granted and the case ended in a c c o rd a n c e with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006 )

(n o tin g that Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal courts from exercising appellate jurisdiction o v e r final state court judgments). Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t io n of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge 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 r e v i e w , but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in o rd e r to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 ( 4 t h Cir. 2005). T h e court has carefully reviewed the record. The court adopts the Report and

R e co m m e n d a tio n and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for ju d gm e n t on the pleadings (Entry 32) is granted and the case dismissed in accordance with the R o o k e r -F e l d m a n doctrine. I T IS SO ORDERED. / s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina A u gu s t 13, 2010.

N O T I C E OF RIGHT TO APPEAL P l a i n tif f is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2