Allen v. Founders Federal Credit Union

Filing 40

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. ORDERED that the Defendants motion to dismiss, docket number 20, is granted to the extent Allen has asserted his claims under Bivens and/or § 1983, and that those claims are dismissed, with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that Allens remaining state law causes of action, to the extent that he has intended to assert any such claims, are dismissed, without prejudice, in order to allow Allen to pursue these claims in state court, if he so desires. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 2/12/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Robert Craig Allen,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Founders Federal Credit Union,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 7:17-1964-HMH-BM

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Robert Craig Allen (“Allen”), proceeding
pro se, alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Marchant recommends granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Bivens and/or § 1983
claims and dismissing without prejudice Allen’s remaining state law claims. (Report &
Recommendation 8, ECF No. 37.)
Allen filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District 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. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Allen’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Allen’s objections are without merit.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Marchant’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, docket number 20, is granted to the
extent Allen has asserted his claims under Bivens and/or § 1983, and that those claims are
dismissed, with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that Allen’s remaining state law causes of action, to the extent
that he has intended to assert any such claims, are dismissed, without prejudice, in order
to allow Allen to pursue these claims in state court, if he so desires.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
February 9, 2018

2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

3