Bryant v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al
ORDER RULING ON 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court concurs in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 9/6/2017. (vdru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Joyce Ann Bryant,
) C/A No. 2:17-0430-MBS
OPINION AND ORDER
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Timothy J.
Sloan, Chief Executor Officer and
President: Wells Fargo & Company; a
Plaintiff Joyce Ann Bryant, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on February 20, 2017. In
Declarations filed with this court, Plaintiff appears to asserts that she was wrongly evicted from her
residence subsequent to a foreclosure.1 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 Bristow Marchant for pretrial
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to
ensure that a plaintiff has standing; that subject matter jurisdiction exists; and that a case is not
frivolous. On August 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
he determined that Plaintiff asserted no grounds for federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The
Magistrate Judge further observed that a federal court cannot overrule and reverse orders and rulings
made by a state court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Magistrate Judge also noted that a federal
court must abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
Plaintiff has previously attempted to contest the foreclosure action in this court. See Wells Fargo
Bank v. Bryant, C/A No. 15-4726-MBS-BM; Wells Fargo v. Bryant, C/A No. 2:16-1430-MBS.
91 (1971). Finally, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s allegations are generally
incomprehensible and thus incompatible with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This 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)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily
dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
September 6, 2017
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?