Anderson v. Simpson

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING 46 Report and Recommendations denying 27 Motion to Dismiss filed by Carol A Simpson. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 8/4/09. (jtho, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Robert F. Anderson, Trustee, in Bankruptcy for Lee Holt Judd, ) ) ) Civil Action No. 6:08-3034-GRA-WMC Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) ) Defendant. ) )

Carol A. Simpson,

This matter is before the court to review the magistrate's Report and Recommendation Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02)(B)(2)(e) D.S.C.. This is an adversary

proceeding in a bankruptcy action and the matter before the Court is the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant is an attorney licensed in South Carolina. The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id.

In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn.1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). "Courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983). Neither party offered any objections to the Report and Recommendation. After reviewing the record, and the Report and Recommendation this Court finds that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court adopts the magistrate's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 27) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 3

Anderson, South Carolina August 4, 2009

Page 3 of 3