Stack v. Brock and Scott PLLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Corinthian Stack; Lynn K. Stack, Civil Action No. 3:21-2854-CMC

Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER

Brock & Scott PLLC; Chad W. Burgess an individual; Gregory T. Whitley, individual; Lender Processing Services, Inc.; LPS Default Solutions; LPS Default Solutions Network; Fidelity National Title Insurance Company; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. As Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 Asset Backed Certification, Series 2005-1; Mortgage Electronic Registrat System, AKA “MERS”; PHH Mortgage Services; John Do 1-10,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint, alleging a violation of he Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 7, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiffs of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. The court has received no objections and the time for filing has expired. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection

is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.”) (citation omitted). After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by

reference in this Order. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina November 4, 2021