Opinion
3:24-mc-00004-JFA
04-12-2024
Portia Yvonne Holt, DEBTOR v. Ms. Helen Elizabeth Burris and Ms. Annemarie Belanger, DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
Portia Yvonne Holt (“Debtor”) filed a “Notice of Interveners by Right and Cross-claimants' Demand to Compel Discovery and Inspection of Evidence and Challenge of the Jurisdiction of the Court, and of the Judge with the Bankruptcy,” which was construed as a Motion to Withdraw Reference of Debtor's bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.
This matter was referred to the Honorable Shiva H. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36b(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by the magistrate judge. ECF No. 15. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be denied as moot for the reasons stated in the order. Id. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge suggests that, if the Court is compelled to grant Debtor's motion, the matter should be summarily dismissed because Defendants are entitled to immunity. Id. Under either resolution, Judge Burris's motion for an extension will be rendered moot. This Court has no basis to conclude otherwise. Additionally, Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report, ECF No. 6, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Accordingly, Judge Burris's motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 2, is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.