Bellamy et al v. Countrywide Home Loans et al

Filing 24

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 3/25/2014. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Countrywide Home Loans; Bank of )
America, N.A.; US Bank as Trustee )
for JP Morgan Trust 2006-S4; and )
any other parties known or unknown )
)
at this time, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
)
Billy J. and Wendy J. Bellamy,

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-3575-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiffs Billy J. and Wendy Bellamy (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action pro se in the South
Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Horry County against Defendants Countrywide Home Loans;
Bank of America, N.A.; US Bank as Trustee for JP Morgan Trust 2006-S4; and any other parties
known or unknown at this time, et al. (“Defendants”). See Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Defendant’s
removed the action to this court on December 23, 2013, see ECF No. 1, and filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 27, 2013,
see ECF No. 8.
As Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court entered an order on December 30, 2013
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiffs of the
importance of a motion to dismiss and the need for them to file an adequate response. See Order,
ECF No. 12. The Order explained that any response was due by February 3, 2013. See id. at 1.
Plaintiffs were specifically advised that if they failed to respond adequately, Defendants’ motion
may be granted, thereby ending their case. Id. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, on February 6, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to advise whether the intended to

continue with their case by February 28, 2014. See Order, ECF No. 16. Plaintiffs have not filed a
response to this Order either.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 21. In
the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the
action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, as it appears Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to
dismiss and wish to abandon their action against Defendants. See id. 2.
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 this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In the absence of

objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).

2

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for
failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
March 25, 2014

3