From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Clement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Feb 7, 2020
Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-00437-JMC (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2020)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-00437-JMC

02-07-2020

Sunny Williams, Plaintiff, v. Eva R. Clement, Clement Law Firm, PLLC, Karon Korp, Asheville Realty Group, and JCV Properties, Defendants.


ORDER

Sunny Williams filed an action alleging that Eva R. Clement, Clement Law Firm, PLLC, Karon Korp, Asheville Realty Group, and JCV Properties (collectively, "Defendants") illegally disposed of her personal property located at 102 Justice Ridge Road in Candler, North Carolina. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that the court deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50), but grant Defendants' Motion for Transfer of Venue (ECF No. 51). (ECF No. 56 at 14.)

The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See 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 objections are made. Diamond v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

On January 9, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and advised the parties of their right to file objections by January 23, 2020. (ECF No. 56). The record shows that none of the parties filed objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, 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). Rather, "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 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

After a thorough review, the court finds that the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and that the record does not contain clear error. Therefore, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 56), DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50), and GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Transfer of Venue (ECF No. 51).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

United States District Judge February 7, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina


Summaries of

Williams v. Clement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Feb 7, 2020
Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-00437-JMC (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2020)
Case details for

Williams v. Clement

Case Details

Full title:Sunny Williams, Plaintiff, v. Eva R. Clement, Clement Law Firm, PLLC,…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION

Date published: Feb 7, 2020

Citations

Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-00437-JMC (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2020)