Adderley v. Countrywide et al

Filing 11

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, overruling plaintiff's objections and accepting the Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, for 8 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on April 7, 2015. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
NATHANIEL M. ADDERLEY, SR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTRYWIDE; COUNTRYWIDE
)
HOME LOANS; COUNTRYWIDE NA;
)
COUNTRYWIDE SERVICING LP;
)
COUNTRYWIDE TAX SERVICE
)
CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA )
CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA )
NA; BANK OF AMERICA NA,
)
individually and as successor by merger to )
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP;
)
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS
)
SERV, Countrywide Legacy Employers;
)
SPS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING )
LP; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; )
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS;
)
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS
)
SERVICING LP,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-cv-4893-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Nathaniel M. Adderley, Sr., proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging that
the defendants violated his constitutional rights and improperly serviced his mortgage loan.
(Doc. #1). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was
assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court summarily dismiss this action without

prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. #8). Plaintiff filed objections to
the Report on March 2, 2015 (Doc. #10), and this matter is now ripe for disposition.
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #8), and Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED (Doc.
#10). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. #1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
April 7, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina