Guess v. Adams et al
Filing
19
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting in part 16 Report and Recommendation, dismissing Plaintiff's claims for relief under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act without prejudice, and returning case to Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/7/2015. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Thurmond R. Guess, Sr.
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
David Adams, as Richland County Treasurer;
)
Shirley S. Tapp,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
C/A NO. 3:15-657-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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 March 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an
Amended Report1 recommending that Plaintiff’s 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 April 2, 2015.
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
The original Report, issued March 17, 2015, was vacated upon entry of the Amended
Report. See Am. Report at 1, n.1, ECF No. 16.
1
determination of any portion of the Amended 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 objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Amended Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s
objections, the court finds that it is a close question whether Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to
state causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983. While Plaintiff’s allegations are
weak and perhaps unlikely to survive a properly supported motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment, the court declines to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 on
prefiling review.
As to Plaintiff’s allegations relating to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691
et seq., (“ECOA”) the court agrees with the Amended Report that Plaintiff has failed to provide
sufficient factual allegations that he applied for, or was denied, any type of credit by Defendants for
a prohibited reason or that Defendants extended loans to other similarly situated individuals outside
Plaintiff’s protected class. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for relief under the ECOA are dismissed
without prejudice.
Defendants have filed an Answer in this matter. ECF No. 7. Pursuant to the Local Rules of
this court, this matter shall be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
April 7, 2015
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?