Riley v. Fidelity Information Services et al

Filing 23

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation, denying 7 Ex Parte Motion SEALED; dismissing action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 9/17/2015. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
CHARLES RILEY,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
vs.
§
§
FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES
§
(“FIS”), FNF; LENDER PROCESSING
§
SERVICES, INC. (“LPS”); LPS DEFAULT
§
SOLUTIONS, INC. DOCX; FIDELITY
§
SOUTHERN CORPORATIONS;
§
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LOAN
§
TRUST/SERIES 2007-HE1-ASSET BACKED §
PASSED-THROUGH CERTIFICATES/
§
STANWICH ASSET ACCEPTANCE
§
COMPANY, LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK
§
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; FLEMING §
& WHITT DEFAULT LAW FIRM;
§
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE; SAFECO
§
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
§
AMERICA; MARTHA FLEMING;
§
HONORABLE DAVID R. DUNCAN; JOY S. §
GOODWIN; RYAN W. HOVIS; BRUCE
§
ROSE; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT
§
CORPORATIONS; and EDDYE LANE,
§
Defendants.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-02331-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
This case was filed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78J(B); 18 U.S.C. §§ 152(4), 1956, 1957.453,
and 2314; 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (a)(1)(C); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985; and
South Carolina law. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the

Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the
Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The
Magistrate Judge also recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction. The Report was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on June 18, 2015, and the Clerk of Court entered
Plaintiff’s objections on July 6, 2015. The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be
without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
In Plaintiff’s objections, he makes no specific objections to the Report. Instead, he generally
reiterates claims that the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Because the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of those issues, it need not discuss them again here.
Therefore, it will overrule Plaintiff’s objections.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of
this Court that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and
service of process.
2

Further, as recommended by the Magistrate Judge, it is the judgment of this Court that
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of September, 2015, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3