Lyles v. Grant et al

Filing 71

ORDER adopting 65 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 39 is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's RICO and Lanham Act claims and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT with respect to Plaintiff's state law claims. The parties are directed to submit additional briefing regarding the amount in controversy within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 10/15/2018.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Kenyatta Lyles,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Anthony Grant, Rotundra Hughley,
)
Jennifer Doe, Candice Makins,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 6:17-cv-03245-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 39.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, and Defendants filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 51, 56.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On August 3, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Plaintiff’s federal causes of
action be dismissed and additional briefing be ordered on the amount in controversy with
respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims. ECF No. 65. The Magistrate Judge advised the
parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if she failed to do so. Neither party has filed objections, and the
time to do so has passed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See U.S.C. § 636(b). The
Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [39] is GRANTED with respect to
Plaintiff’s RICO and Lanham Act claims and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT with respect
to Plaintiff’s state law claims. The parties are directed to submit additional briefing
regarding the amount in controversy within 30 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 15, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina

s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge

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.
2