Tillery v. Jaguar/Land Rover Hilton Head et al

Filing 65

ORDER adopting 57 Report and Recommendation, overruling 63 Plaintiff's objections; granting 40 Motion to Dismiss and granting 45 Motion to Dismiss. It is ordered that this matter is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 6/12/2015.(vdru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

BEAUFORT DIVISION

Joseph F. Tillery,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 9:14-2530-SB

)

Jaguar/Land Rover Hilton Head, Land
Rover North America, Nicholas R. Felix,
Krista M. McGuire, Carmen T. Mullen,
and William C. Clark,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

-----------------------)
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, wherein he
asserts claims regarding his purchase of a used Range Rover vehicle. Essentially, the
Plaintiff is asking the Court to bring criminal charges against Defendants Land Rover North
America and Jaguar/Land Rover Hilton Head, and he is asking this Court to "reopen" a
state case regarding the same facts so the federal court can investigate the state court.
Pursuantto the Local Civil Rules for this District, the matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On January 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
("R&R"), recommending that the Court dismiss Defendants Nicholas R. Felix, Krista M.
McGuire, William C. Clark, and Carmen T. Mullen. The Plaintiff failed to file written
objections to the R&R. and after review, the Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the
above-named Defendants.
Next, on May 26,2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a second R&R, recommending
that the Court grant the remaining corporate Defendants' motions to dismiss. As the

Magistrate Judge noted, the Plaintiff cannot obtain a criminal investigation or criminal
charges against the Defendants through this action. In addition, as the Magistrate Judge
also noted. this Court does not have jurisdiction to "reopen" his state court lawsuit and
review the final determinations of the state court. Finally, to the extent the Plaintiff seeks
damages from the corporate Defendants, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
the Defendants' exhibits demonstrate that this case is barred and must be dismissed
pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
The Plaintifffiled written objections to the R&R on June 8,2015. However. nowhere
in his objections does he point to any legal or factual error in the R&R. Instead, the Plaintiff
simply reiterates his claim that the settlement of his state case involved a forgery. After
review, the Court finds the Plaintiffs objections to be without merit. For the reasons set
forth by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R. the Plaintiffs claims are either not cognizable
in this Court or are barred pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Accordingly, it is hereby

t4/I ):

ORDERED that the R&R (Entry 57) is adopted and incorporated; the Plaintiff's

~bjections (Entry 63) are overruled; the corporate Defendants' motions to dismiss (Entries
40 and 45) are granted; and this matter is ended.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 1~2015
Charleston, South Carolina

2