Parker v. Wachovia Bank et al

Filing 12

OPINION & ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 9 Report and Recommendations, dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 8/17/2011. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
James Derrell Parker,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Wachovia Bank;
)
Dale Wells,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 3:11-1513-CMC-PJG

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed against Defendants
Wachovia Bank and Dale Wells. Dkt. No. 1.
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 July 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without service of process
because Plaintiff failed to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s order of June 22, 2011directing Plaintiff
to bring this case into proper form. Dkt. No. 9. 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. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.
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).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts
and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this order. This matter is
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
August 17, 2011

2