United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Vincent D. Mack and Paula D. Mack, Plaintiffs,
Wells Fargo Financial South Carolina, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Caliber Home Loans Inc., U.S. Bank NA, Mikell R. Scarborough, J. Martin Page, Sarah Oliver Leonard, Caroline R. Glenn, and Brad Stokes Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bristow Marchant United States Magistrate Judge.
action has been filed by the Plaintiffs, pro se, alleging
claims under, inter alia, the Federal Truth in Lending Act
and/or the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Order dated July 13, 2018, Plaintiffs were given an
opportunity to provide the necessary information and
paperwork to bring the case into proper form for evaluation
and possible service of process. Plaintiffs were warned that
failure to provide the necessary information and corrected
Complaint from within the timetable set forth in the Order
would subject the case to dismissal. See also, e.g.
Brockington v. South Carolina Dept. of Social Service,
No. 17-1028, 2017 WL 1531633 (4th Cir. April 28,
2017) [Noting that pro se Plaintiff should be provided an
opportunity to amend his complaint to cure defects prior to a
dismissal]; Evans v. Richardson, No. 17-1144, 2017
WL 2294447 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017) [same];
Breyan v. All Medical Staff, No. 17-6186, 2017 WL
2365232 (4th Cir. May 31, 2017) [same]. After
receipt of only partial proper form documents, a second
proper form order was issued on August 14, 2018, granting
Plaintiffs an additional twenty-one (21) days to bring their
case into proper form. However, the time to bring this case
into proper form has now lapsed, and Plaintiffs have failed
to provide a response to the proper form Orders, or to
contact the Court in any way.
on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be
dismissed, without prejudice, in accordance with Rule 41,
Fed.R.Civ.P. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626 (1962); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96
(4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard
v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [holding
that district court's dismissal following an explicit and
reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion]. The Clerk
shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiffs at
their last known address. If the Plaintiffs satisfy the
requirements for proceeding with this case as is set forth in
the proper form Order within the time set forth for filing
objections to this Report and Recommendation, the Clerk is
directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return
this file to the undersigned for further handling.
Brockington, 2017 WL 1531633. However, if Plaintiffs
fail to do so, then at the end of the time for filing
objections, the Clerk shall forward this Report and
Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition.
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d at 95 [Magistrate
Judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of
dismissal would result from plaintiff failing to obey his
order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss
suit when plaintiff did not comply despite
parties are also referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
of Right to File Objections to Report and
parties are advised that they may file specific written
objections to this Report and Recommendation with the
District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections
are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72
advisory committee's note).
written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
to timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal
from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v.
Collins, 7 ...