Chase v. LOP Capital LLC et al

Filing 148

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 145 . It is therefore ORDERED that the defendants motion for partial summary judgment as to the plaintiffs third and fourth causes of actions (ECF No. 112) be granted, and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/16/2014. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Civil Action No.: 2:13-cv-162-BHH
Nelson S. Chase, Esq.,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
vs.
)
)
LOP Capital, LLC, Strategic Lending )
Solutions, LLC, Brian Knight, and
)
Michael Loprieno,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )

Opinion and Order

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) (ECF No. 145) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald
recommending that the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to
the plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of actions (ECF No. 112) be granted.
The plaintiff, Nelson S. Chase (“Chase”), is a licenced South Carolina
attorney, but because he is representing himself, the action is considered pro se
and was automatically referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e). In his Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the defendant’s motion for partial summary
judgment (ECF No. 112) be granted as to plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of
action. Objections to the Report were due by October 14, 2014. The plaintiff has
filed no Objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a
final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
1

261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any
portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court

ACCEPTS and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 145), by reference into this
Order. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for partial summary
judgment as to the plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of actions (ECF No. 112) be
granted, and that the matter be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further
pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 16, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina

2