Temples v. United States Postal Service
Filing
25
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 4 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Jeffrey R Temples, granting 10 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by United States Postal Service, adopting 19 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 5/30/12. (mflo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jeffrey Temples,
Plaintiff,
vs.
United States Postal Service,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 3:12-34-JFA-SVH
ORDER
The pro se Plaintiff, Jeffrey Temples, filed the present action in Richland County
against the United States Postal Service (USPS) for nonpayment of an insurance claim on
a package allegedly not delivered to China. The USPS removed the action to this court,
and the present matter is before the court pursuant to the Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment (ECF No. 4) and the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 10).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted.
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and
the court incorporates such without a recitation.
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
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on May 8, 2012.
Petitioner,
however, failed to file objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to given any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The
Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied, Defendant’s
motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, and the action
is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 30, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?