Holt v. Burris et al

Filing 10

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 5 Report and Recommendation, dismissing as moot 1 Motion to Withdraw Reference, filed by Portia Yvonne Holt, terminating as moot 2 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, filed by Helen Elizabeth Burris, Annemarie Belanger. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/12/2024. (jpet, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Portia Yvonne Holt,

Case No. 3:24-mc-00004-JFA

DEBTOR
v.
Ms. Helen Elizabeth Burris and Ms.
Annemarie Belanger,

Order

DEFENDANTS

Portia Yvonne Holt (“Debtor”) filed a “Notice of Interveners by Right and
Crossclaimants’ Demand to Compel Discovery and Inspection of Evidence and
Challenge of the Jurisdiction of the Court, and of the Judge with the Bankruptcy,”
which was construed as a Motion to Withdraw Reference of Debtor’s bankruptcy case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.
This matter was referred to the Honorable Shiva H. Hodges, United States
Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36b(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). The matter now comes before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by the magistrate judge. ECF No. 15. In
the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be denied as
moot for the reasons stated in the order. Id. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge
suggests that, if the Court is compelled to grant Debtor’s motion, the matter should
be summarily dismissed because Defendants are entitled to immunity. Id. Under
either resolution, Judge Burris’s motion for an extension will be rendered moot. This
Court has no basis to conclude otherwise. Additionally, Plaintiff did not file any

objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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 & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
Magistrate Judge, the Report, ECF No. 6, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF
No. 1, is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Accordingly, Judge Burris’s motion for an
extension of time, ECF No. 2, is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 12, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge