Bruce v. Ladies Choice Fitness Center Columbia Inc et al

Filing 77

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 76 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 02/26/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Cynthia Bruce,

C/A No. 3:12-cv-02678-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,
vs.
Ladies Choice Fitness Center Columbia, Inc.;
Ladies Choice Fitness Center Landmark, Inc.;
and Ladies Choice Fitness Center MI, Inc.

ORDER

Defendants.
This matter comes before the court on (1) the plaintiff’s failure to file either a motion for
default judgment or a motion for voluntary dismissal as to Ladies Choice Fitness Center
Columbia Inc. (“LCFCC”); and (2) the plaintiff’s failure to effect service and to prosecute as to
Ladies Choice Fitness Center MI, Inc. (“LCFC MI”).1
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) 2 and opines that this action be dismissed with prejudice as to both
LCFCC and LCFC MI. ECF No. 76. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law, and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on February 5, 2014. However, they did not file objections. In the absence of specific
1

2

The plaintiff dismissed her complaint against Ladies Choice Fitness Center Landmark, Inc., on
December 20, 2013. ECF No. 72.
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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).

objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give an 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, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and
dismisses the action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 26, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2