Scott v. Titlemax of Columbia et al
Filing
55
OPINION & ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 46 Motion to Compel, Motion to Dismiss; adopting 52 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/6/2012. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Maurice Scott
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TitleMax of South Carolina Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
C/A No. 3:09-1032-CMC-JRM
OPINION & ORDER
Through this action, pro se Plaintiff Maurice Scott alleges a violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., against TitleMax of South
Carolina, Inc. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the case.
The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
of Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C.
The Report, filed on January 17, 2012, recommends that the court grant Defendant’s
motion to compel arbitration and dismiss this action. Dkt. No. 46. The Magistrate Judge advised
Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. Id. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, which
were due on February 3, 2012.
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). The
court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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).
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 and
incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s motion to
compel arbitration is granted and this case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
February 6, 2012
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?