Wright v. Bank of America NA

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 34 Report and Recommendation and granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Bank of America NA, Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 7/18/2014. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
James W. Wright,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bank of America, NA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-02913-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 34), filed June 18, 2014, recommending that Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) be granted on the basis that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff brought
this action alleging that Defendant wrongfully foreclosed on his home. The Report sets forth the
relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.

The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 objections are made, and
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 34 at 10.)
Plaintiff, however, did not file any objections to the Report.

1

In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, the court 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report
and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant
matter. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 34). It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

July 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

2