Terry v. Allen University

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS incorporating 10 Report and Recommendations, dismissing action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/12/2010. (jpet, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA

L a w r e n c e Terry,

) ) P l a in tif f , ) v. ) ) A lle n University, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) _________________________________ )

C /A No. 3:10-90-JFA-PJG

ORDER

P laintif f , proceeding pro se, brings this action against the defendant raising negligence a lle g a tio n s in connection with his lowered college grade point average. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R ec o m m en d a t io n and opines that the plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim before th is federal court. 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 and without a hearing. T h e plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on March 1, 2010. Plaintiff did not file tim e ly objections to the report. In fact, on March 8, 2010, the copy of the Report mailed to th e plaintiff was returned by the United States Postmaster as "undeliverable."

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

1

T h e Magistrate Judge properly concludes that plaintiff's claims do not pose a federal q u e stio n and as a result, this court is without federal jurisdiction to consider the claims. The M a g is tra te Judge opines that absent an assertion of federal claims, this court should not e x e rc is e supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's potential state law claims. Further, the M a g istra te Judge opines that there is no diversity between the parties who are both residents o f South Carolina, thus, federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be invoked. After 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 to be proper and in c o rp o ra te s the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without p r e ju d ic e and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

A p ril 12, 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

2