Hall v. Champayne
Filing
21
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 17 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 3/20/2012. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Carol L. Hall,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Timothy Champayne,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 3:11-3219-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed in this court relating to
certain alleged actions of Defendant.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On February 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that this matter be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for
filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. On March 14,
2012, this court received a short letter from Plaintiff, which this court has construed as objections
to 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 of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
1
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).
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections,
the court agrees with the Report. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report in its entirety by
reference in this Order.
Plaintiff’s letter states:
As stated in statements sent before to your Office, the provision of 1 or 2 years
(photocopies) of all information (most current) on file at HUD are needed to
understand where you are, requests were made, however, never received from HUD.
$3,000 [indecipherable] which are filed in HUD Complaint.
Letter at 1 (ECF No. 20). This “objection” fails to provide any basis which might convince this
court that the Report is not sound in its analysis of the shortcoming of Plaintiff’s complaint.
For these reasons, therefore, 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
March 20, 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?