United States of America v. Walker et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 64 Report and Recommendation. The court adopts the Reports analysis and discussion of Rule 4(m) and incorporates it herein. However, the court does not agree that dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate at this time. Therefore, this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/1/2014. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States of America,
William Charles Walker, II, et al.,
Civil Action No. 6:13-232-TMC
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants seeking to foreclose real estate mortgages on
property situated in this District. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the
court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the
court dismiss this action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to properly
serve the defendants and 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 64). The Report advised the
parties of their right to file objections, however, neither party has objected to the Report’s
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Report’s analysis and discussion of Rule 4(m) and incorporates it herein. However, the court
does not agree that dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate at this time. Therefore, this action
is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
April 1, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?