Brooks et al v. Field et al

Filing 288

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 280 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs 273 motion to voluntarily dismiss Pfeiffer without prejudice is granted, Pfeiffers 169 motion for summary judgment is moot, and Pfeiffers 193 motion for sanctions is moot. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/2/2016. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Harold Brooks, Clara Louise Brooks, Benjamin
Brooks, William F. Tomz,
Frances W. Tomz, Sharon Finch, Individually
and as Class Representatives,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Arthur M. Field, Frederick Scott Pfeiffer,
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
)
Arthur M. Field,
)
)
Counter-Claimant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Benjamin Brooks, Clara Louise Brooks,
)
Harold Brooks, Sharon Finch,
)
William F. Tomz, Frances W. Tomz,
)
Counter-Defendants, )
______________________________________ )
)
Arthur M. Field,
)
)
Third Party Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Capital Investment Funding, LLC,
)
Third Party Defendant, )
______________________________________ )
)
Capital Investment Funding, LLC,
)
)
Counter-Claimant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Arthur M. Field,
)
Counter-Defendant. )
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 6:14-2267-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin (ECF No. 280) recommending that Plaintiffs’ motion
to voluntarily dismiss Pfeiffer without prejudice (ECF No. 273) be granted; that Pfeiffer’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 169) be found as moot; and that Pfeiffer’s motion
for sanctions (ECF No. 193) be found as moot. After carefully reviewing the Report and
Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally
been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31,
82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). As well as inherent authority, this Court may sua
sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed objections, and the time for doing so expired on
May 16, 2016. 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). Rather, “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but

-2-

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 and advisory committee’s note).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss Pfeiffer without
prejudice (ECF No. 273) is granted, Pfeiffer’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 169)
is moot, and Pfeiffer’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 193) is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

June 2, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-3-