family McQuatters v. The Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors et al

Filing 44

OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 37 Report and Recommendation; granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time. (Service due by 11/15/2013) Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/30/2013. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Joseph Thomas, family McQuatters,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.;
)
Finkle Law Firm; Beverly J. Finkle;
)
Thomas A. Shook; CitiMortgage, Inc.;
)
Robinson, Bradshaw, and Hinson
)
Law Firm; and Brian L. Church,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A NO. 3:13-130-CMC-PJG

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleging various violations of
state and federal law. 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 October 16, 2013, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
serve Defendants within the time frame provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 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 has moved for an extension of
time to effect service. See ECF Nos. 40-42.
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

1

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 of the record, and after considering the applicable law,
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s letters, the court grants
Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time (ECF Nos. 40-42) and determines that Plaintiff should
be provided an extension of time to effect service upon Defendants. Plaintiff shall have until
Friday, November 15, 2013, to effect service on Defendants and file evidence of this service with
the court. No further extensions shall be granted.
If service is accomplished within the time frame ordered by this court, this matter shall be
re-referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. If Plaintiff fails to effect
service and provide proof of service to the court by the above-stated deadline, this matter will be
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
October 30, 2013

2