Chabot v. Kennedy et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 47 ] of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that D efendants' motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 16 & 41 ] are GRANTED and, to the extent Plaintiff's response [ECF No. 25 ] could be construed as a motion to transfer venue to Maryland or North Carolina, that motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/10/2015. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Joseph P. Kennedy, Shannon L. Nee
Kennedy Oliver, and the Kennedy
Law Firm, a/k/a Kennedy Kennedy
& Ives, LLC,
Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-04611-RBH
Plaintiff Timothy Chabot, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the above named
Defendants asserting claims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. See ECF
No. 1. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, see ECF Nos. 16 & 41,
and Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. See ECF No. 25. 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.1
See R & R, ECF No. 47. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court (a) grant Defendants’ motions
to dismiss; and (b) to the extent Plaintiff’s response could be construed as a motion to transfer venue
to Maryland or North Carolina, deny that motion. Id. at 1, 14.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
The Magistrate Judge conducted her review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the screening provisions
of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro
se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however,
without limits. Gordon directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not require those courts
to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.”).
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it 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).
No party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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)).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error, and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 47] of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 16 & 41] are GRANTED and, to the
extent Plaintiff’s response [ECF No. 25] could be construed as a motion to transfer venue to Maryland
or North Carolina, that motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
August 10, 2015
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?