Soney v. Bank of America et al
Filing
64
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ACCEPTS the 60 Report. Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, defendant Bank of America's 27 motion to dismiss is GRANTED, defendant Caro lina Pines' 37 motion to dismiss is GRANTED, defendant Direct TV's 47 motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety. In light of this ruling, all other pending motions are now MOOT. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 6/17/2011. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Priscilla Soney,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Bank of America, Direct TV, and
)
Carolina Pines Regional Medical
)
Center,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 4:10-cv-1841-TLW-TER
ORDER
The plaintiff, Priscilla Soney (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, on July 15, 2010.
(Doc. # 1). The defendants, Bank of America, Direct TV, and Carolina Pines Regional Medical
Center (“defendants”), have each filed a motion to dismiss. (Docs. 27, 37, 47). The plaintiff filed
responses to these motions. (Docs. 43, 59).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III to whom this case had
previously been assigned. (Doc. # 60). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
District Court grant the motions to dismiss (Docs. 27, 37, 47) filed by the defendants. (Doc. # 60).
The plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 62). In conducting this review, the Court applies
the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of
the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.
The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
1
or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the
Report. (Doc. # 60). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, defendant Bank
of America’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 27) is GRANTED, defendant Carolina Pines’ motion to
dismiss (Doc. # 37) is GRANTED, defendant Direct TV’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 47) is
GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.1 In light of this ruling, all other pending
motions are now MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
June 17, 2011
Florence, South Carolina
1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining
state law claims that the plaintiff may be asserting in this action.
2
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?