Adams et al v. Butler et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting and adopting 15 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 10/25/13. (alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Kenya L. Adams; Stephen D. Dixon, Sr., )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Patrick Butler; Greenville Auto
)
Connection,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

C/A No.: 6:13-cv-02241-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, and filed on
October 3, 2013. ECF No. 15. This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
On August 19, 2013, Kenya L. Adams and Stephen D. Dixon, Sr. (“Plaintiffs”),
jointly proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging facts that give rise to state law
claims for breach of contract, fraud, and a statutory claim pursuant to the Uniform
Commercial Code, which is codified in the South Carolina Code, ECF No. 1, and a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 2.

On

October 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge Austin authorized Plaintiffs to proceed in forma
pauperis. ECF Nos. 13, 14. Pursuant to established procedure in this judicial district,
the Magistrate Judge made a careful review of the pro se Complaint and
recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. ECF No. 15 at 6.

Page 1 of 3

The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make 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 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). 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 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to
file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any further right to appeal
when the parties have been warned that they must object to preserve appellate
review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); see also Carter v. Pritchard,
34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). In the present case, Plaintiffs were
advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No.
15 at 7.

However, Plaintiffs have not filed any objections to the Report and

Recommendation, and the time for filing such objections has lapsed.

Page 2 of 3

After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 25, 2013 
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3