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.

Garland v. Three Hebrew Boys

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

April 27, 2015

Jeanne Garland, Plaintiff,
v.
Three Hebrew Boys, Defendant.

ORDER

MARGARET B. SEYMOUR, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Jeanne Garland, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on March 23, 2015, seeking the recovery of $7, 500.00 she allegedly lost by investing in a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Defendant Three Hebrew Boys. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling.

The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On March 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she determined that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to establish complete diversity of citizenship. The Magistrate Judge also noted that Plaintiff's claim of $7, 500.00 does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed no response to the Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber , 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This 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)(1). This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. 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).

The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons stated herein and in the Report and Recommendation, the complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

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.