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, )

Download PDF
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

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?