Glenn v. Bi-Lo Corparation
Filing
30
OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process on Defendants. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 5/7/2012. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Andreas Leroy Glenn,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bi-Lo Corporation; Chad J. Jowers,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 3:12-727-CMC-SVH
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint relating to injuries allegedly
suffered during an incident in 2005.
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 Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On April 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the complaint 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 he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections
to the Report on May 3, 2012.1
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.
1
On the same day the Magistrate Judge issued her Report, the court received a letter from
James Muhammad, purporting to “represent” Plaintiff. See Letter (ECF No. 27). Muhammad is a
pro se litigant who has filed several cases before this court, and is not a licensed attorney.
Muhammad lists a “federal license ID” number, but this number does not exist in relation to Mr.
Muhammad.
1
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
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 Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, and considering
the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation 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.
Plaintiff’s objections do not overcome the infirmities of his complaint, mainly that this court
does not have jurisdiction over this matter as there is no diversity of parties as is required by 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
This matter is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process on
Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
May 7, 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?