Brooks et al v. Field et al

Filing 57

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 50 Report and Recommendation, 24 Motion to Dismiss denied. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/18/2015. Modified on 3/18/2015 to remove attachment (gpre, ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
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,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
vs.
)
Arthur M. Field, Frederick Scott Pfeiffer,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )

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

ORDER AND OPINION

The plaintiffs Harold Brooks, Clara Louise Brooks, Benjamin Brooks, William F.
Tomz, Frances W. Tomz, and Sharon Finch (“the plaintiffs”), brought this action against
the defendants Arthur M. Field and Frederick Scott Pfeiffer (“the defendants”) alleging
violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). (ECF
No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pretrial
handling and a Report and Recommendation, because the defendant Arthur M. Field
(“defendant Field”), is proceeding pro se. Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that the
defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. (ECF No. 50.) The Report and Recommendation
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law and the Court incorporates them
without recitation.
BACKGROUND
On February 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the defendant Field’s motion to dismiss be denied. (ECF No. 50.) On

February 27, 2015, the defendant Field filed objections to the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 52) and the plaintiffs filed a reply (ECF No. 55).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270–71, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation (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). However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when a party
makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific
error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the
Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge prepared an extensive and detailed Report recommending that
the defendant Field’s motion to dismiss be denied. (ECF No. 50.) As noted above, the
plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation which the
Court has carefully reviewed. The defendant has principally repeated the same arguments
he raised in his initial motion to dismiss, as well as his reply. Having conducted a de novo

-2-

review of all portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the defendant has
objected, the Court finds that the magistrate judge fairly and accurately summarized the
facts and applied the correct principles of law. The plaintiff’s objections provide no basis
for this Court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court adopts and incorporates by specific
reference the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF NO. 24)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 18, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

-3-