Hayes v. American General Finance

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 23 Report and Recommendations, 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by American General Finance. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/26/2010. (cbru, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Ronald Hayes, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) American General Finance, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) C/A NO. 3:10-80-CMC-PJG OPINION AND ORDER Through this action Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asserts various federal and state-law claims against American General Finance1 related to an alleged breach of contract. This matter is currently before the court on Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the court grants this motion and dismisses this action. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On March 25, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss because Plaintiff's Complaint contained no factual allegations. The Report concluded that, even liberally construing the Complaint, it did not meet the pleading standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Dkt. No. 23; see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court must liberally construe pro se complaints). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if they failed to do so by fourteen days after service Defendant points out that its proper name is "American General Financial Services, Inc." Dkt. No. 11-1 at 1. 1 of the Report, which was April 12, 2010. Neither party filed an objection. This matter is now before the court for review of the Report. 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b). In the absence of an objection, the court reviews the Report and Recommendation 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") (citation omitted). Because neither party filed an objection to any aspect of the Report, the court reviewed its reasoning and recommendations for clear error. Having done so, the undersigned finds no errors in the Report and concurs in its analysis. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report in all respects, grants Defendant's motion, and dismisses this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina April 26, 2010 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?