Logan v. Instant Cash
ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/2/17. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
a/k/a Jack Logan,
Civil Action No. 7:16-2433-TMC
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a
violation of his civil rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the
court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the
court dismiss Plaintiff’s action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
(ECF No. 13). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 13 at
4). Plaintiff has filed objections. (ECF No. 16).
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 (1976). The court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of 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).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a violation under federal law for the failure to truncate
his credit card information and for failing to show his balance on his receipts. (Compl. at 3, 5).
He alleges he has paid his account with Defendant off in full, and he is seeking the return of the
title to his car. (Compl. at 5). In his Report, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff has not
alleged a violation of the United States Constitution or any federal law. (Report at 3). The
Magistrate Judge assumed Plaintiff was asserting a claim under the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, and determined that Plaintiff failed to state any claim under that Act. Id.
In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that he “is raising questions under the EFT. Electronic
Fund Transfer.” (Objections at 1). He contends that when he paid on his account with his debit
card, he never received receipts showing his balance. Id.
While Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's actions violated the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., he does not allege or cite to any specific sections of the
The EFTA creates a “basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and
responsibilities of participants in electronic fund and remittance transfer systems” and
safeguards “individual consumer rights.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693. Section 1693d© requires that
financial institutions provide periodic statements to consumers, which is to include the balance
of the consumer’s account.
The regulations that implement the EFTA define a “financial
institution” as “a bank, savings association, credit union, or any other person that directly or
indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, or that issues an access device and agrees
with a consumer to provide electronic fund transfer services.” 12 C.F.R. § 1005.2(I).
“account” is defined by the act as “a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other asset account.”
15 U.S.C. § 1693a(2). Plaintiff does not allege defendant holds any depository account. Rather,
Plaintiff contends he owed Defendant money on a loan and he paid Defendants payments with
his debit card. Accordingly, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the court finds the EFTA
The court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections and finds no
reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended disposition. Based on the foregoing, the court
adopts the Report (ECF No. 13) and incorporates it herein, and Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 2, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina
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.
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?