Randolph v. Metlife Bank NA et al

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 9 Report and Recommendation, adopting the R&R and dismissing case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 4/3/2013. (mdea )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Ann E. Randolph,

)
) C/A No. 3:13-0111-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
Metlife Bank NA, as successor to
)
EverBank Reverse Mortgage, LLC, as
)
successor to BYN Mortgage Company,
)
LLC; and Rogers Townsend & Thomas,
)
PC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Ann E. Randolph, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on January 10, 2013, alleging
that Defendants improperly are attempting to foreclose on certain property in Hopkins, South
Carolina. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. The Magistrate
Judge reviewed the complaint to determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claim. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint raised no colorable federal
question; therefore, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The
Magistrate Judge further concluded that the parties are not completely diverse, because Plaintiff and
Rogers Townsend & Thomas PC are South Carolina residents; therefore, the court lacks diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the complaint
be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed no
objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has

no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.

The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
April 3 , 2013

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2