Glover v. University Motor Company

Filing 49

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 47 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and finding as moot 38 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 01/15/10. (bshr, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA T re s s a R. Glover, Plaintiff, vs. U n iv e rs ity Motor Company, D e f e n d a n t. ____________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ) C/A No. 3:08-2254-JFA-JRM ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) )

T h e pro se plaintiff, Tressa R. Glover, brings this action under the Fair Debt C o lle c tio n Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 in connection with the repossession of two automobiles she p u rc h a se d and financed from the defendant. Under the court's initial order in this case, p lain tiff was directed to pay the filing fee or submit appropriate documents to apply to p ro c e ed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was also directed to submit fully completed service f o rm s for the defendant. When the plaintiff failed to respond to the orders, the Magistrate Judge assigned to th is case 1 prepared a Report and Recommendation on August 14, 2008, suggesting that the c a se should be dismissed for failure to bring the case into proper form. The plaintiff re sp o n d e d to the Report and the undersigned referred the matter back to the Magistrate Judge.

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is 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).

1

1

D u rin g the pendency of this action, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was apprised of her right a n d obligation to respond to the motion to dismiss. After no response was received from the p la in tif f , the Magistrate Judge issued another order on June 3, 2009, giving the plaintiff an a d d itio n a l fifteen days to respond to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff was specifically w a rn e d that if she failed to respond, the action would be recommended for dismissal with p re ju d ic e for failure to prosecute. To date, there has been no response from the plaintiff. T h e Magistrate Judge has prepared a second Report and Recommendation wherein h e suggests that this court should dismiss the action due to plaintiff's failure to comply with th e court's orders and for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on th is matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the second Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on December 22, 2009. The plaintiff h a s not filed a response within the time limits prescribed. Additionally, the Report mailed to the plaintiff has been returned to the Clerk marked "return to sender." A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation proper and in c o rp o ra te s it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for f a ilu re to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and all outstanding motions are deemed moot.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

J a n u a ry 15, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

3