Moorer v. Luthi et al
Filing
14
ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation; denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 5/29/2015. (hcic, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Curtis Glenn Moorer, also known as )
Curtis G. Moorer,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Mr. Luthi, New Carolina Mortgage; )
Christopher Edwards,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Civil Action No.: 6:15-cv-1921-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff Curtis Glenn Moorer, also known as Curtis G. Moorer, proceeding pro se, filed this
action pursuant against the above named Defendants on May 6, 2015. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 10. In the Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss this action without prejudice
and without service of process. See id. at 6. The Magistrate Judge also recommends that Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. See id.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
and without service of process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 29, 2015
2
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?