Bryant v. Keck et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/4/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Nehemiah N. Bryant,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Paul Keck, Benjamin E. Grimsley,
)
Branch Banking and Trust, Grimsley
)
Law Firm LLC, John Doe 1-100, and
)
Jane Doe 1-100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:18-493-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, which alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. In accordance
with Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
for preliminary review.
On April 9, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an order giving Plaintiff the
opportunity to provide necessary information and paperwork to bring the case into proper
form for evaluation and possible service of process. Plaintiff was specifically warned that
failure to provide the necessary information within the permitted time would subject the
case to dismissal.

Despite this warning, Plaintiff failed to provide the necessary

information. Accordingly, on May 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court dismiss this action without
prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Attached to the Report
was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report within
fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed, and

Plaintiff still has not provided the necessary paperwork to bring this case into proper form.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’ “) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court adopts the Report (ECF No. 14), and this action is
dismissed without prejudice in accordance with Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 4, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina
2