Lane v. Lane et al

Filing 59

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ADOPTING 57 Report and Recommendation GRANTING 12 , 14 , 25 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/8/2015. (sshe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRlCT OF SOUTH CAROLINA L:
Robert M. Lane,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

c:!V~_!;
,-'

".:

t

..

,

~

,_,

ZGi5 OCT - 8 p 2: 21
Civil Action No. 9: 15-cv-1740-RMG

)

~

Dr. Vikki L. Lane, Bruce Glesby, Marisa
Beuoy, David K. Pontes, John T. Rudnick,
Carol Schick, Griffith & Thornburgh, LLP,
Kitch, Drutchas, Wagner, Valitutti &
Sherbrook PC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

-------------------------)
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 57) recommending that this Court grant Defendants' motions to
dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 25) and dismiss the case without prejudice. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court grants the motions.
In this pro se action, Plaintiff sued his ex-wife and her attorneys for fraud, conspiracy to
commit fraud, breach of contract, perjury, malicious and fraudulent prosecution, the use of legal
filings for an improper purpose, and failure to supervise and assure competence of attorneys and
employees. (Dkt. No.1). On June 4, 2015, Defendant Kitch, Drutchas, Wagener, Valitutti &
Sherbrook PC filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 12). On the same day, Defendants Vikki
Lane, Gleesby Beuoy, Shick, and Griffith & Thornburgh, LLP filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt.
No. 14).

The Court entered a Roseboro order on June 5, 2015 (Dkt. No. 20), and John

Rudnick-the last remaining Defendant-filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2015. (Dkt. No.
25).

Plaintiff filed a response to the motions to dismiss on July 24, 2015. (Dkt. No.47). The
Magistrate Judge recommended granting each of the motions to dismiss on various grounds,
including lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of specific jurisdiction, and improper venue. (Dkt.
No. 57). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R & R.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "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," see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has reviewed the R & R, the full record in this matter, and the relevant legal
authorities. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably and properly summarized the factual
and legal issues and appropriately recommended that the motions to dismiss should be granted.
Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R & R as the order of this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
2

United States District Court Judge

8,

October
2015
Charleston, South Carolina

3