Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stoute v. Coops Fitness, LLC

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

August 13, 2014

Randy Stoute, Plaintiff,
v.
Coops Fitness, LLC Defendant.

ORDER

G. ROSS ANDERSON, Jr., Senior District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald's Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, and filed on filed on July 9, 2014.

Plaintiff Randy Stoute ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on April 23, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 27. Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation on July 9, 2014, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 29.

Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).

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. 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 Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). In this case, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation were due by July 28, 2014. ECF No. 29. No objections were filed.

Under Rule 41, a district court may dismiss an action "at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit has explained "[t]he decision to grant voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is a matter for the discretion of the district court, and its order will ordinarily not be reversed except for an abuse of discretion." Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987). "The purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is freely to allow voluntary dismissals unless the parties will be unfairly prejudiced." Id.

After reviewing the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 27, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 22, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.