France v. Visions Federal Credit Union

Filing 26

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 24 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/2/2022. (adic, )

2:21-cv-01781-BHH

Date Filed 08/02/22

Entry Number 26

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Christopher James France,
Appellant,
v.
Visions Federal Credit Union; and Kevin
Campbell, Trustee,
Appellees.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:21-1781-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the pro se appeal filed by Appellant Christopher
James France (“Appellant”) of an Order entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge David
R. Duncan in Appellant’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. See In re Christopher James France,
Debtor, C/A No. 20-03044-dd (D.S.C.). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) for the District of South Carolina, these matters was referred to
a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On June 24, 2022, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court affirm
the bankruptcy court’s Order. (ECF No. 24.) Attached to the Report was a notice advising
the parties of their right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being
served with a copy. (Id. at 10.) To date, no objections have been filed.
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

2:21-cv-01781-BHH

Date Filed 08/02/22

Entry Number 26

Page 2 of 2

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. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 24) without
objection, and incorporates it herein, and the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 2, 2022
Charleston, South Carolina

2