United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
matter comes before the court on Defendant Metro Management
C/O, d/b/a Sam Burt Houses, Inc.'s
(“Defendant”) Motion to Set Aside Default (ECF
No. 22) and Motion to Dismiss/Transfer Venue (ECF No. 23).
Plaintiff Harvin Alston (“Plaintiff”) did not
file a response to the Motion to Set Aside Default, but did
file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 28).
Therefore, the motions are ripe for review.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this civil action against Defendant on June 26, 2018 pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). (ECF Nos. 1, 9). Plaintiff
alleges he lived in a two-bedroom co-op apartment in
Brooklyn, New York, for 38 years before moving to South
Carolina in April 2014 after Hurricane Sandy hit New York in
October 2012, rendering his building unlivable. (ECF Nos. 1
at 7, 28 at 1). Plaintiff claims Defendant owes him the fair
market value of his apartment based on their contract. (ECF
Nos. 1 at 7, 28 at 1). 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.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court should grant the Motion to Set Aside
Default (ECF No. 22), grant the Motion to Transfer this case
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (ECF No. 23), and otherwise deny the Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 23). (ECF No. 29 at 9). 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. 29). The Magistrate
Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by December 26,
2018. (ECF No. 29 at 11). Plaintiff did not file objections
to the Report and the time to do so has now expired.
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). 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). In the absence of specific
objections to portions of the Magistrate Judge'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).
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
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. 29).
Therefore, this Court grants Defendant's Motion to Set
Aside Default (ECF No. 22), grants Defendant's Motion to
Transfer this case to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (ECF No. 23), and otherwise
denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23).
 “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)