United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Joseph F. Tillery, Plaintiff,
Jaguar/Land Rover Hilton Head, Land Rover North America, Nicholas R. Felix, Krista M. McGuire, Carmen T. Mullen, and William C. Clark, Defendants.
SOL BLATT, Jr., Senior District Judge.
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. Pursuant to 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 Plaintiff filed 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 Plaintiff's 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
ORDERED that the R&R (Entry 57) is adopted and incorporated; the Plaintiff's objections (Entry 63) are overruled; the corporate Defendants' motions to dismiss (Entries 40 ...