Scott v. Chrome Capital LLC
Filing
43
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts 38 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's 21 motion to dismiss, converted into one for summary judgment, is granted. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 8/22/2016. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Maurice Wyman Scott,
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-2692-CMC
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
Chrome Capital, LLC,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violations of his privacy, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent
misrepresentation as a result of his lease of a motorcycle. ECF No. 1. 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 Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”).
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 2, 2015. ECF No. 21. Pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Defendant of the dismissal
procedure and the consequences if he failed to respond. ECF No. 23. After Defendant accepted
service of process and thereby rendered some of its arguments in its Motion to Dismiss moot, the
court notified the parties of its intention to treat Defendant’s motion as one for summary judgment.
Matters outside of the pleadings had already been submitted, and the court invited the parties to
submit any further material they wished by June 6, 2016. ECF Nos. 29, 33. Defendant filed an
additional affidavit in support of its motion (ECF No. 35), and Plaintiff filed a reply to that affidavit
(ECF No. 37).
On July 25, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment be granted and this matter dismissed with prejudice.
The
Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to
the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Neither party filed objections.
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court
reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s motion to
2
dismiss, converted into one for summary judgment, is granted. This matter is dismissed with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 22, 2016
3
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?