Erdman v. Wachovia
Filing
45
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 42 Report and Recommendations granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/6/12. (awil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Linda Erdman,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
1
Wachovia,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
C.A. No. 7:10-cv-03070-JMC
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc.
42], filed on February 16, 2012, recommending the court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary
[Doc. 30]. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards
on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's recommendation herein without a
recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In a document filed with the court on March 5, 2012 [Doc. 43], Plaintiff notes that she will
1
Defendant asserts the proper defendant is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to
Wachovia Bank, National Association. [Doc. 9.]
not file objections to the recommended disposition of her case as outlined in the Report and
Recommendation.
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 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 advisory
committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District
Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 30] is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
February 21, 2012
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?