Williams v. PennyMac Loan Services et al
ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/15/2023. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
TOMMY RONDELL WILLIAMS,
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES and DAN
CIVIL ACTION 3:23-5063-MGL-SVH
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING THE ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS, WITH PREJUDICE,
AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
Plaintiff Tommy Rondell Williams (Williams) filed this lawsuit against PennyMac Loan
Services and Dan Perotti. Williams is representing herself.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge recommending to the Court Jackson’s action be dismissed as
frivilous, with prejudice, and without issuance and service of process. 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 October 25, 2023, but Williams failed to file any
objections. “[I]n 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to
object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
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
the Court Williams’s action is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS, WITH PREJUDICE, and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 15th day of November, 2023, in Columbia, South Carolina.
/s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Williams 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.
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?