Trenton v. Holloway's Funeral Home et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 11 Report and Recommendations. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 10/27/10. (awil)
Trenton v. Holloway's Funeral Home et al
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Holloway's Funeral Home; ) Horace Holloway, Proprietor; ) Entire Holloway Family, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Anthony Fitzgerald Trenton,
C.A. No. 8:10-CV-02531-JMC
The pro se plaintiff brings this action against a funeral home and the family that owns it for breach of contract. Plaintiff claims that his grandparents paid in advance for theirs and his mother's funerals, but that when his mother died, Defendants claimed that her funeral had not been paid for in advance. His mother's body was cremated and Plaintiff seeks $ 1 million in damages. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Entry # 11], filed on October 5, 2010, recommends that the court dismiss the Complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Entry # 11, at 8]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to 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 [Entry # 11] and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint in the above-captioned case is
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina October 27, 2010
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?