Singletary v. Allstate Insurance Company
ORDER RULING ON 115 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting the R&R of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks granting 79 Defendant Allstate Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing this action with prejudice Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/21/2013. (sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
John G. Singletary,
RECEIVED Cl.ERK'S OFFICE
ZOI] NOV 2 I A q: 5l
No. 2: 12-cv-940-RMOJ::: r [f., I
Allstate Insurance Company and its agents )
jointly and severally,
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that this Court grant Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismiss this action with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 115). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court agrees with and wholly adopts the R&R as the order of the Court.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action against Defendants, his automobile
insurance provider, for allegedly undervaluing his truck after a collision. (Dkt. No.1). Plaintiff
brings a cause of action for fraud relating to the valuation and also complains that Defendants
moved his truck from South Carolina without his permission. Because of Plaintiff's pro se
status, this case was automatically referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial
handling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC. On March
18,2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 79). Plaintiff then filed a
response in opposition, (Dkt. No. 84), and Defendants filed a reply, (Dkt. No. 87).
Magistrate Judge then issued the present R&R recommending that the Court grant Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 115). Plaintiff then filed timely objections to the
R&R. (Dkt. No. 117).
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)(l). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id
In reviewing these pleadings, the Court is mindful of Plaintiffs pro se status. This Court
is charged with liberally construing the pleadings of a pro se litigant. See, e.g., De 'Lonta v.
Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). The requirement of a liberal construction does not
mean, however, that the Court can ignore a plaintiffs clear failure to allege facts that set forth a
cognizable claim, or that a court must assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
where none exists. See United States v, Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012).
After review of the record, the R&R, and Plaintiffs objections, the Court finds the
Magistrate Judge applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case and therefore agrees with
and adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 115). Regarding Plaintiffs fraud
claim, the Court agrees that there is no evidence supporting several elements of that cause of
action, including Plaintiffs reliance on any representation, Defendants' knowledge of any false
statement, or its intent that Plaintiff would rely on the statement. Further, the Court agrees that
Plaintiff s claim regarding the alleged transfer of his vehicle should be dismissed because there is
no evidence he did not consent to have his truck moved and the federal and state statutes he cites,
18 U.s.c. § 2314 and S.C. Code § 56-5-5630(A)(2), are inapplicable to the facts of this case.
Plaintiffs objections are unavailing. Plaintiffs primary concern appears to be that he did
not consent to this case being referred to the Magistrate Judge and that her orders are therefore
void. However, consent of the parties is not required when a case is automatically referred under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In re Zaczek, 902 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1990) (table opinion) ("Zaczek brought
this petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to remove the
matter from the magistrate's jurisdiction and vacating the magistrate's orders because of the lack
of § 636(c) consent.
We deny the petition because the case was properly referred to the
magistrate pursuant to § 636(b), for which no consent is required.").
Plaintiff also objects that discrepancies between his affidavits and those of the
Defendants are reason enough to deny summary judgment. However, factual disputes must be
genuine and material to survive summary judgment, and Plaintiff points to none. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). For example, Plaintiff asserts that a police report conflicts with Defendants' assessment of
the damage to his truck, but he does not provide a citation to the alleged report and the Court
could not discover one in the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a) (party asserting a fact is
genuinely disputed must provide citations to material in the record). Similarly, Plaintiff argues
that Defendants' representations that his vehicle had a missing hubcap and smoke bums are not
true, however, Plaintiff offers no record evidence to support his contentions beyond self-serving
affidavits. In fact, the evidence Plaintiff produced tends to affirm Defendants' representations;
for example, Plaintiff submitted a picture of his truck showing a missing hubcap or wheel cover
on the front passenger wheel. (Dkt. No. 84-1 at 17). See Riley v. Honeywell Tech. Solutions,
Inc., 323 Fed. App'x 276, 278, n.2 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that Plaintiff's "self-serving
contentions . . . were properly discounted by the district court as having no viable evidentiary
support."). Thus, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that no genuine dispute of material
fact exists here.
Finally, Plaintiff objects that his claim should properly be considered as one for breach of
contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. However, as discussed above and more fully in the
Magistrate Judge's R&R, Plaintiff has failed to point to evidence in the record which would
create a genuine dispute of fact as to Defendants' fraudulent intent or fraudulent acts in valuing
his vehicle. See RoTec Servs., Inc. v. Encompass Servs., Inc., 597 S.E.2d 881, 883 (S.C. Ct.
App. 2004) (discussing elements of breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act).
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. 115). Accordingly, Defendants' motion
for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 79), is GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark Gerge
United States District Court Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
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?