Singletary v. Wells Fargo Wachovia Mortgage Corp et al

Filing 208

ORDER ADOPTING 196 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 188 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/21/2013. (sshe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

John G. Singletary, Jr.,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

CIA No. 2:11-484-RMG

)

~

)

ORDER

Wachovia Mortgage Corporation/Wells
)
Fargo, its agents, servants, employees, and )
others collectively and individually,
)
)

Defendants.

)
)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending this Court grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
(Dkt. No. 196). For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with and wholly adopts the
R&R as the order of the Court.
Background

Plaintiff filed this civil action, pro se, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, other federal
statutes, as well as several state law causes of action. Because of Plaintiff s pro se status, this
case was automatically referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC. On
November 21, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all Plaintiffs claims.
(Dkt. No. 188). The Magistrate Judge then issued an R&R recommending this Court grant
Defendant's motion. (Dkt. No. 196). Plaintiff then filed timely objections to the R&R in which
he also asserted a cross motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 202). Defendant then filed a
reply to Plaintiffs objections. (Dkt. No. 206).

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
Law/Analysis

After review of the record, the R&R, and Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case and therefore wholly
adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 196).
Plaintiffs objections to the R&R fail to establish any genuine dispute of material fact.
Plaintiffs objections mainly consist of conclusory arguments unsupported by facts or citations to
the record.

For example, Plaintiff argues that he submitted affidavits which compete with

Defendant's affidavits and that summary judgment is therefore improper. However, Plaintiff
neither references any such affidavits in the record nor states on what material facts they conflict.
Plaintiff also asserts that discovery in this case is ongoing, and that summary judgment would be
premature. However, discovery in this case has been closed since October 23, 2012. (Dkt. No.
177). Finally, Plaintiff includes in his objections several articles from internet cites regarding
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act. The Court finds these articles do not create a genuine dispute of fact necessary to avoid
granting summary judgment in Defendant's favor.

2

Concluding his objections, Plaintiff asserts a cross motion for summary judgment citing
Defendant's alleged misconduct relating to discovery. However, the deadline to file motions for
summary judgment was November 21, 2012, and the Court finds no evidence of misconduct in
the record. (Dkt. No. 84). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion because it is untimely
filed and because he has failed to present facts which entitle him to relief.
Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R of the
Magistrate Judge as the order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 196). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 188). The Court DENIES Plaintiffs
cross motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 202).

Richard Mark Ge ge
United States Dist' Court Judge
March 1. ( ,2013
Charleston, South Carolina

3