Brown et al v. Synovus Bank et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation, terminating as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Orlando Ira Brown. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 9/24/2018. (mdea )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Orlando Ira Brown, on behalf of
International Recovery Services, LLC;
International Trade Finance, LLC;
Standard Commerce Bank,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Synovus Bank; SunTrust Bank,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 3:18-1348-MBS

ORDER AND OPINION

On May 17, 2018, Plaintiff Orlando Ira Brown, proceeding pro se and “on behalf of”
Plaintiffs International Recovery Services, LLC; International Trade Finance, LLC; and Standard
Commerce Bank, filed a complaint and request for injunction against Defendants Synovus Bank and
SunTrust Bank. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied business transactions, was issued a trespass
notice not to return to SunTrust Bank, and had a beneficiary account closed by Synovus Bank.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the allegations of the complaint and noted that corporate entities may not proceed without
counsel. On July 9, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing the named corporate
Plaintiffs to obtain counsel within thirty days. No action being taken, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation on August 29, 2018. The Magistrate Judge recommended that any
claims the corporate entities may be attempting to raise in the complaint be dismissed without
prejudice. In addition, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff Brown should be dismissed

because he appears to be acting as counsel for the corporate entities, but is not an attorney and is
without standing to bring any claims on behalf of the corporate entities. In addition, the Magistrate
Judge determined that Plaintiff’s asserted basis for jurisdiction is the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”); however, the complaint alleges no facts relating to an
ADA violation. The Magistrate Judge also determined that Plaintiff Brown’s claims, to the extent
they are brought in his individual capacity, should be dismissed as frivolous. The Magistrate Judge
therefore recommended that the complaint be summarily dismissed for lack of prosecution and lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed no response to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiffs’ complaint is summarily
dismissed for lack of prosecution and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Brown’s motion

2

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is terminated as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
September 24, 2018

3