Reaves et al v. Guelho et al

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report, ECF No. 8 , is ACCEPTED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 11/17/2022. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kathy Reaves, a/k/a Kathy Juanita
Reaves, and Seth Reaves,

Case No. 4:22-cv-02799-TLW

PLAINTIFFS
v.
Pedro Manuel Guelho, Collateral
Recovery Solutions, Inc., Collateral
Recovery Solutions d/b/a/ 128 East
Industrial Blvd., Florence, S.C.,
Santander Consumer USA, Mullins
Police Department,

Order

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Kathy Reaves and her son, Seth Reaves (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action against the abovenamed defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the August 2022
repossession of Plaintiff Seth Reaves’ Hyundai vehicle. Id. Plaintiffs purport to bring
their suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331; 28 U.S.C § 1332; the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (“FRCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227; the Invasion of Privacy Act, the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C §
3729; common law conversion, the Fourteenth Amendment, and various provisions of
the South Carolina Constitution. Id
Plaintiffs’ complaint was referred to the Honorable Thomas E. Rogers, III,
United States Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36b(b)(1)(B). The
magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which
Page 1 of 3

directs the court to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as when the complaint seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 1 Accordingly, the
magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), ECF No. 8,
recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice and
without service of process.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report filed by the
magistrate judge. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiffs’
complaint be summarily dismissed because (1) the majority of the allegations in
Plaintiffs’ 29-page complaint are largely irrelevant and unrelated to Plaintiffs’
purported claims; (2) Plaintiffs’ have failed to allege a violation of federal bankruptcy
laws because Plaintiffs’ vehicle was not under any stay to prevent repossession; 2 (3)
federal district court is not the proper forum to reassert claims already addressed in
bankruptcy court; (4) there is not an applicable private right of action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act; (5) Plaintiffs’ common law and state
constitutional claims are subject to dismissal because Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim garnering federal question jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331; and (6) Plaintiffs’
common law and state constitutional claims are subject to dismissal because
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim garnering diversity jurisdiction pursuant to §

The magistrate judge took this step because “Plaintiff has filed actions in this court subject to
summary dismissal for frivolity[.]” ECF No. 8 at 6 n.2.

1

The Court notes that the magistrate judge made this determination after thoroughly and
comprehensively reviewing the relevant bankruptcy docket in both the bankruptcy court and in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

2

Page 2 of 3

1332 because complete diversity does not exist and Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege the jurisdictional amount in controversy. Id. at 2–6. Plaintiffs did not file
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. 8, is ACCEPTED. This matter is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE
OF PROCESS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
November 17, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3