Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Jordan v. J.P. morgan Chase Bank

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

January 22, 2019

Diana Jordan, Plaintiff,
v.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Defendant.

          ORDER

          JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Diana Jordan (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, [1] filed this civil action on August 16, 2018 against Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank concerning the sale of 124 Bakersland Road, Chapin, South Carolina. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.[2](ECF No. 8). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for Review.

         The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[3] prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this action should be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 9 at 5). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. (ECF No. 9). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by September 4, 2018. See Dkt. Entry for (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and the time to do so has now expired.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A district court is required to conduct only a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W.Va. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate's Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Thus, the Court must only review those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has made a specific written objection. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).

         Here, Plaintiff did not timely file objections to the Report. The Magistrate Judge allowed Plaintiff ample time to respond to the Report and Plaintiff failed to do so. Without specific objections to the Report, this Court may adopt the Report without explanation.

         III. CONCLUSION

         After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report (ECF No. 9). Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1]Pro se complaints and pleadings, however inartfully pleaded, must be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Ally v. Yadkin Cty. Sheriff Dept., 698 Fed.Appx. 141, 142 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).

[2] Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915, this Court is charged with screening Plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if, after being liberally construed, it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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