Butler v. Credit One Bank et al

Filing 27

ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 1/7/2025. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
PHILLIP MITCHELL BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CREDIT ONE BANK, ROBERT DEJANG,
JOHN, and ROB PITTMAN,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 5:24-4231-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
Plaintiff Phillip Mitchell Butler (Butler), who is representing himself, brought this civil
action against Defendants Credit One Bank, Robert DeJang, John, and Rob Pittman, alleging
various claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 18 U.S.C. § 1341; the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15
U.S.C. § 41 et seq.; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; and the False Claims
Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3279 et seq.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of
the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court summarily dismiss this case without
prejudice and without leave to amend. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636
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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 12, 2024. To date, Butler has failed
to file any objections.
“[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court this case is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, without leave to
amend, and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 7th day of January 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Butler is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2