Bryant v. Stone

Filing 81

ORDER adopting the 76 Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiff's 69 motion to transfer venue, and transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. It is further ordered that Defendant's 51 motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to refile. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 1/8/2018. (bgoo) [Transferred from South Carolina on 1/8/2018.]

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION John A. Bryant, Jr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Taylor B. Stone, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________) Civil Action No.: 0:16-cv-03927-RBH ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 76]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue, transfer this case to the Eastern District of Virginia, and deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to refile. R & R at pp. 1, 6. 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 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 R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the 1 Any objections by Defendant (who is represented by counsel and was served electronically) were due by December 14, 2017, and any objections by Plaintiff (who is pro se and was served by mail) were due by December 18, 2017. See ECF Nos. 76 & 77. Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)). Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 76]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue [ECF No. 69] and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 51] without prejudice to refile. IT IS SO ORDERED. Florence, South Carolina January 8, 2018 s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge 2

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?