Holloway v. Duke Energy

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION mooting 30 Motion to Transfer Case filed by Robert Holloway, Jr, adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, dismissing case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 1/5/15. (alew, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON DIVISION
Robert Holloway, Jr.,

) Civil Action No.: 8:14-4239-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
)
Duke Energy,
)
)
Defendant. )
______________________________ )
On October 30, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Holloway, Jr., (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action against Defendant power company alleging that Defendant wrongly
disconnected power to his residence. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn
D. Austin for review. On December 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge prepared a Report and
Recommendation, (ECF No. 21), (“the Report”), which recommends that this action be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, as Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set
out a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. Objections to the Report were due by
December 29, 2014. Although Plaintiff filed a timely “Objection” to the Report, (ECF No. 25), the
argument presented by Plaintiff in the short, hand-written filing is nearly incoherent and certainly
does not set out specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Plaintiff has also moved, in
a similar filing, for this case to be transferred. (ECF No. 30).
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 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
Plaintiff’s response to the Report or “Objection.” The Court has undertaken a de novo review, even
though Plaintiff’s “Objection” does not advance specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
Instead, Plaintiff’s filing amounts to a rambling set of accusations concerning perceived unfairness
in the court system. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff fails entirely to address the Magistrate Judge’s central
determination that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to set out a plausible claim of breach of a prior
settlement agreement.
For the forgoing reasons, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and
adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 21). Accordingly, this action
is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Transfer Case, (ECF No. 30), is terminated as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 5, 2015
-2-