Opinion
C/A: 2:15-2246-RMG-BM
09-10-2015
Andrea J. Magwood, Plaintiff, v. Christiana Trust, A Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Normandy Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2013-15, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Plaintiff, Andrea J. Magwood, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action in which she claims she has created a "land trust" in certain real property, and seeks to retain the property. She requests declaratory judgment. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3, 5-7.
By Order of the Court dated June 23, 2015, Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to bring her Complaint into proper form by submitting a fully completed and signed Form USM-285 for Defendant and fully completed and signed pro se party's answers to Rule 26.01 interrogatories. Plaintiff was specifically admonished that if she failed to provide the items specified within the period prescribed in the Order, the file would be forwarded to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge for a recommendation. See In Re: Procedures in Civil Actions Filed by Non-Prisoner Pro Se Litigants, No. 3:07-mc-5015-JFA.
Plaintiff failed to provide the requested items by the proper form deadline, or to contact the Court in writing in any way. As such, Plaintiff has failed to complete her proper form process and no Defendant has been served. Therefore, it is recommended that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the Plaintiff to comply with this Court's Order or to properly prosecute her claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989). cert. denied sub nom., Ballard v. Volunteers of Am., 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [Magistrate judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when the plaintiff did not comply despite warning].
The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at her last known address. If the Plaintiff notifies the Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that she wishes to continue with this case and provides the items requested in the Court's Order dated June 23, 2015 (ECF No. 8), the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition. See Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96 [holding that district court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion].
The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
/s/_________
Bristow Marchant
United States Magistrate Judge
September 10, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n 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 (4th Cir, 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).