United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Howe Hendricks United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow
Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
Plaintiff Juanita Wilson, proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint against Defendant Wells Fargo alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. (ECF No. 1). On November 8, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order advising Plaintiff as to the
deficiencies of her complaint and directing Plaintiff to
bring the case into proper form by December 5, 2019. (ECF No.
8). The order stated that no process would issue until
Plaintiff had cured the specified deficiencies and further
warned that failure to bring the case into proper form within
the time permitted by the order may result in the court
dismissing the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
Id. Plaintiff did not bring the case into proper
form or otherwise respond to the order. Accordingly, on
December 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process
pursuant to Rule 41. (ECF No. 11). The Report and
Recommendation advised Plaintiff as follows:
If the Plaintiff satisfies 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.  However, if Plaintiff
fails 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.
(Id. at 2). On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
motion construed by the Clerk's Office as a request to
submit evidence. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff has not filed a
specific objection to the Report and Recommendation, nor has
she brought her complaint within proper form.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the Court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party makes only
“general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate
Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation
and the deadline for doing so expired on December 30, 2019.
To the extent Plaintiff's motion to submit evidence could
be construed as an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds that the motion asserts no
challenge to the Magistrate Judge's findings, specific or
otherwise. In the absence of specific objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court
is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). Indeed, “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) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 and advisory
because Plaintiff failed to file a specific objection, the
Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's
complaint is subject to summary dismissal for the reasons
stated in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein
by reference and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this
Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the ...