Opinion
2:22-cv-04521-RMG-MGB
02-07-2024
Peggy S. Kandies, PLAINTIFF, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, DEFENDANT.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action alleging state law claims for breach of contract and breach of contract with bad faith. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 35.) Currently before the Court is Defendant Liberty Mutual's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 65). Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 65) be GRANTED, and that this case be dismissed in full.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
This case arises from water damage in Plaintiff's home. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 65.) According to Plaintiff, she fell in late 2019 and hurt her hand. (Dkt. No. 35.) On December 19, 2019, her friend brought her to Georgia to care for her. (Id.) When Plaintiff returned to her home on January 3, 2020, she found “water coming out of the attic where the hot water heater was installed.” (Id.)
Plaintiff claims that she called Defendant Liberty Mutual to file her insurance claim when she discovered the damage on January 3, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff claims she was assigned the claim number 045268834, with a loss date of December 19, 2019. (Id.)According to Plaintiff, she was told “not to do anything until the adjuster was assigned.” (Id.)
Defendant Liberty Mutual contends that the claim was not reported until April 7, 2021. (Dkt. No. 65 at 2.)
It is undisputed that December 19, 2019 is the date of loss for purposes of Plaintiff's insurance claim. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 35, 65, 80.)
Richard Bohlar was assigned as the adjuster for Plaintiff's claim. (Dkt. No. 35, 65.) Plaintiff claims that Mr. Bohlar delayed addressing her claim and that during the delay “[t]here were no actions to help Plaintiff in getting her and her pets in a safe place, per her policy ....” (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff alleges that she called Defendant Liberty Mutual to request a new adjuster on April 7, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Liberty Mutual then “changed the date of loss to April 7, 2021.” (Id.)
After Plaintiff filed her claim, PureClean Disaster Restoration Specialists was hired to inspect her property and assess the water damage. (Dkt. Nos. 65; 65-3.) PureClean conducted its inspection on April 29, 2021. (Dkt. No. 65-3.) On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff's insurance claim was denied on the basis that certain policy conditions were not met-namely, Plaintiff did not give prompt notice of the water damage, did not make efforts to protect her property from further damage, and did not make reasonable and necessary repairs. (Dkt. No. 65-4.)
According to Plaintiff, Defendant Liberty Mutual improperly denied her claim. (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff claims she suffered damages directly and proximately caused by the “complete failure of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to perform.” (Id.) As such, she filed this lawsuit, alleging breach of contract and breach of contract with bad faith (Id.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint against Defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and David Long. (Dkt. No. 1.) On March 15, 2023, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Dkt. No. 17.) On that same day, Defendant David Long filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims against him. (Dkt. No. 22.) On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend her Complaint, which included a proposed Amended Complaint and various exhibits. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4, 25-5, 25-6, 25-7, 25-8, 25-9, 25-10, 25-11, 25-12, 25-13.) By Order dated April 28, 2023, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. (Dkt. No. 34.) The Amended Complaint was filed that same day. (Dkt. No. 35.) In light of the Amended Complaint, the undersigned deemed Defendant Long's Motion to Dismiss moot. (Dkt. No. 37.)
David Long has since been dismissed from this civil action. (Dkt. Nos. 67, 86.)
Defendant Liberty Mutual answered the Amended Complaint on May 10, 2023. (Dkt. No. 41.) On that same day, Defendant Long filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 42.) The next day, the Court issued an Order, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if she failed to adequately respond to Defendant Long's Motion. (Dkt. No. 43.) Plaintiff responded on May 22, 2023, and Defendant Long replied on May 26, 2023. (Dkt. Nos. 45, 46.)
On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant Liberty Mutual's Answer to her Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 47.) Two days later, Defendant Liberty Mutual filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's response. (Dkt. No. 48.) On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, claiming that Defense counsel “misrepresent[ed] the dates of mailings to Plaintiff” and asking the Court to address this issue. (Dkt. No. 53.) Defendants responded to Plaintiff's Motion on July 10, 2023. (Dkt. No. 55.) Plaintiff replied to Defendants' response on July 17, 2023. (Dkt. No. 56.)
On August 3, 2023, the undersigned issued an Order and Report and Recommendation denying Defendants' Motion to Strike and Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief and recommending that Defendant Long's Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Dkt. No. 60.) The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Defendant Long's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed Defendant Long as a party to this litigation. (Dkt. No. 67.)
On August 21, 2023, Defendant Liberty Mutual filed a Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 64, 65.) On that same day, the Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if she failed to adequately respond to Defendant Liberty Mutual's Motion. (Dkt. No. 66.) Plaintiff responded to Defendant Liberty Mutual's Motion in Limine on September 5, 2023, and Defendant Liberty Mutual replied on September 28, 2023. (Dkt. Nos. 74, 75.) The Court denied the Motion in Limine without prejudice on November 21, 2023, noting that it was premature. (Dkt. No. 92.)
Plaintiff filed her operative response to Defendant Liberty Mutual's summary judgment motion on October 10, 2023. (Dkt. No. 80.) Defendant Liberty Mutual replied to Plaintiff's response on November 7, 2023. (Dkt. No. 90.) After requesting leave from the Court, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply to Defendant Liberty Mutual's reply on December 20, 2023. (Dkt. No. 104.) As such, the Motion before the Court has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.
As reflected in the docket, Plaintiff filed many iterations of her response to Defendant Liberty Mutual's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 74, 76, 80.) As the undersigned clarified in an Order dated November 6, 2023, the Amended Response at Docket Number 80 and its accompanying exhibits is considered Plaintiff's only response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 87.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment “shall” be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Facts are ‘material' when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a ‘genuine issue' exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” The News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “‘the nonmoving party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in that party's favor.'” Id. (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999)); see also Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1990). Conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion. Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Because Plaintiff is representing herself, these standards must be applied while liberally construing her filings in this case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
DISCUSSION
As noted, Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract and breach of contract with bad faith under South Carolina law. (Dkt. Nos. 35.) In its Motion, Defendant Liberty Mutual asserts that Plaintiff's claims fail because: (1) Plaintiff did not name the correct underwriting company in this civil action and, therefore, cannot show that a valid contract exists between Plaintiff and Defendant Liberty Mutual; (2) an objectively reasonable basis existed for denying Plaintiff's insurance claim; (3) Defendant Liberty Mutual did not breach the insurance contract; and (4) Plaintiff has provided no evidence of damages. (See generally Dkt. No. 65.) For the reasons set forth in greater detail below, the undersigned agrees with Defendant Liberty Mutual's arguments and therefore RECOMMENDS that its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 65) be GRANTED.
I. Breach of Contract
“To establish breach of contract under South Carolina law, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) a binding contract entered into by the parties; (2) breach or unjustifiable failure to perform the contract; and (3) damage as a direct and proximate result of the breach.” Beaumont v. Walter Scotty Branch, No. 2:23-cv-03546-DCN, 2023 WL 7075101, at *10 (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 2023) (citing King v. Carolina First Bank, 26 F.Supp.3d 510, 517 (D.S.C. 2014)); see also Fuller v. E. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 24 S.E.2d 602 (1962). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each element of her breach of contract claim. See Davidson v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., No. 3:21-cv-1180-JFA-PJG, 2022 WL 626389, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2022), adopted sub nom. Lawrence U. Davidson, III, Plaintiff, v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., Defendant., 2022 WL 405993 (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2022); see also Fuller, 124 S.E.2d at 610. Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish all elements of her breach of contract claim, and Defendant Liberty Mutual is therefore entitled to summary judgment on such claim.
As to the first element, Defendant Liberty Mutual argues that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a valid contract between Plaintiff and Defendant Liberty Mutual. (Dkt. No. 65 at 6-7.) In support of this contention, Defendant Liberty Mutual has provided the Court with a copy of the homeowner's insurance policy upon which Plaintiff's claims are based. (Dkt. No. 65-1.) The policy reflects that it is “provided and underwritten by Liberty Insurance Corporation,” not Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the named defendant in this civil action. (Dkt. No. 65-1 at 4.) Thus, the contract at issue here is between Plaintiff and Liberty Insurance Corporation, not Plaintiff and Defendant Liberty Mutual. (See generally id.) As a result, Plaintiff cannot establish a binding contract entered into by the parties to this litigation. Her breach of contract claim therefore fails.
As Defendant Liberty Mutual notes in its Motion, Defendant Liberty Mutual's Rule 26.01 disclosures informed Plaintiff that Defendant Liberty Mutual was not the underwriting company that issued Plaintiff's policy. (Dkt. No. 21 at 3.) In its Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendant Liberty Mutual identified the correct underwriting company. (Dkt. No. 41 at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff had notice of the error, as well as an opportunity to file a further amended complaint against the appropriate defendant.
Assuming, arguendo, that Defendant Liberty Mutual was a party to the insurance contract at issue here, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim would still fail. Defendant Liberty Mutual asserts that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant Liberty Mutual breached any portion of the insurance contract. (Dkt. No. 65 at 10-11.) Upon careful review of the record, the undersigned agrees. Nowhere in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or response in opposition to Defendant Liberty Mutual's Motion for Summary Judgment does Plaintiff identify the specific portion of her policy that was breached. Instead, Plaintiff provides conclusory assertions that Defendant Liberty Mutual “used the Delay, Deny, Defend strategy to not take care of [her] damages per her policy” and “unreasonably denied [her] claim.” (Dkt. No. 35 at 7, 10.)
By contrast, Defendant Liberty Mutual provides an explanation for denying Plaintiff's claim that is supported by the record. For example, Defendant Liberty Mutual asserts that Plaintiff's claim was denied because she did not comply with certain conditions of her insurance contract when making her claim. (Dkt. No. 65 at 11.) In support of this assertion, Defendant Liberty Mutual points to the “CONDITIONS” section of the policy. (Id. at 10-11.) This portion of the policy states, in relevant part:
SECTION I - CONDITIONS
2. Your Duties After Loss. In case of a loss to covered property, you must see that the following are done:
a. Give prompt notice to us or our agent; . . .
d. Protect the property from further damage. If repairs to the property are required you must:
(1) Make reasonable and necessary repairs to protect the property; and
(2) Keep an accurate record of repair expenses; . . .
e. Prepare an inventory of damaged personal property showing the quantity, description, actual cash value and amount of loss. Attach all bills, receipts and related documents that justify the figures in the inventory;
f. As often as we reasonably require:
(1) Show the damaged property;
(2) Provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies; and
(3) Submit to examination under oath, while not in the presence of any other “insured,” and sign the same; ....(Dkt. No. 65-1 at 13.)
Under Plaintiff's policy, she was required to promptly notify her insurer of the damage to her home, and to make efforts to protect and/or repair her property following the initial damage. (Id.) Defendant Liberty Mutual contends that Plaintiff's insurance claim was denied because she did not comply with these conditions. (Dkt. No. 65 at 10-11.) The record confirms this contention.
First, Plaintiff vehemently contends that she submitted her claim on January 3, 2020. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 35, 80.) However, she has provided the Court with no evidence beyond her own statements to support this assertion. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 35-1, 35-2, 35-3, 35-4, 35-5, 35-6, 35-7, 35-8, 35-9, 35-10, 35-11, 35-12, 35-13, 80-1, 80-2, 80-3, 80-4, 80-5, 80-6, 80-7, 80-8, 80-9, 80-10, 80-11, 80-12, 80-13, 80-14, 80-15, 80-16, 80-17, 80-18, 80-19, 80-20.) Defendant Liberty Mutual included as an exhibit to its Motion two letters from Plaintiff that were submitted as evidence to the South Carolina Department of Insurance in July of 2021, following a complaint Plaintiff lodged against Defendant Liberty Mutual. (Dkt. No. 65-7.) The letters are dated January 10, 2020 and January 15, 2020, and were purportedly sent to Defendant Liberty Mutual on those dates. (Id.) However, the record contains no evidence that they were actually mailed to or received by Defendant Liberty Mutual. In fact, Defendant Liberty Mutual included as an exhibit to its motion a copy of its First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission, in which it requested proof that Plaintiff had mailed the letters dated January 10, 2020 and January 15, 2020. (Dkt. No. 65-8.) Still, the record contains no such proof. Rather, the overwhelming evidence in the record indicates that Plaintiff informed her insurer of the water damage to her home on April 7, 2021. (See Dkt. Nos. 35-11, 65-2, 65-4, 65-6, 80-4.)
The undersigned notes that even if the record contained evidence indicating that Plaintiff mailed these letters on January 10 and January 15 of 2020, the letters would not support her assertion that she filed her claim on January 3, 2020.
Regardless, the record reflects that Plaintiff did not make efforts to protect and/or repair her property following the initial water damage. Plaintiff provides no evidence that she hired someone to repair her property, or that she attempted to make repairs herself. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 35, 80.) Plaintiff provides a receipt for a storage unit-into which she moved several personal items to protect them from damage-however, this receipt shows that Plaintiff protected her personal possessions, not that she made efforts to protect the remainder of her home and/or repair the water heater causing the damage. (Dkt. No. 65-1 at 13.) Plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to repair the water heater; she claims only that her friend turned the leaking water heater off and vacuumed up water. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 35, 80.) In fact, Plaintiff has claimed throughout this entire litigation that Defendant Liberty Mutual was required to make the repairs for her, and to provide her with a place to stay until the repairs were complete. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 35, 80.)
Even assuming that Plaintiff filed her insurance claim on January 3, 2020, and that she made the proper efforts to protect and/or repair her property, Defendant Liberty Mutual has also provided evidence that Plaintiff's property was inspected by PuroClean on April 29, 2021, and “the inspection photos from PuroClean show long term water damage and not damage which would have occurred due to a sudden/accidental occurrence.” (Dkt. Nos. 65-3, 65-6.) Again, Plaintiff provides nothing beyond her own conclusory assertions to refute Defendant Liberty Mutual's evidence. See Ross, 759 F.2d at 365 (noting that conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion). Thus, even taking Plaintiff's evidence as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the evidence currently before the Court shows that Plaintiff did not promptly notify Defendant Liberty Mutual of the water damage underlying her claim, as the insurance policy requires. (See Dkt. Nos. 65-1, 65-3, 65-6.) As such, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden to prove that Defendant Liberty Mutual breached the insurance contract by denying her claim. See Davidson v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., No. 3:21-cv-1180-JFA-PJG, 2022 WL 626389, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2022) (noting that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing her breach of contract claim), adopted sub nom. Lawrence U. Davidson, III, Plaintiff, v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., Defendant., 2022 WL 405993 (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2022).
Defendant Liberty Mutual has further provided an Order from the Public Safety and Housing Committee for the City of North Charleston, which states “[b]etween April 2015 and October 12, 2021, visits to [Plaintiff's] home revealed that the property continued to deteriorate and caused health, sanitation, and public safety risks.” (Dkt. No. 65-9.) Plaintiff spends the majority of her response in opposition to Defendant Liberty Mutual's summary judgment motion contesting the validity of this Order, and opposing the City of North Charleston's treatment of her. (See generally Dkt. No. 80.) The undersigned notes that the City of North Charleston's findings pertaining to Plaintiff's home were not considered as a factor supporting the undersigned's recommendation that Defendant Liberty Mutual is entitled to summary judgment in this case. As such, the undersigned declines to address Plaintiff's contentions about the City of North Charleston.
Plaintiff also cannot establish the third element of her breach of contract claim. Under South Carolina law, “‘[t]he general rule is that for a breach of contract the defendant is liable for whatever damages follow as a natural consequence and a proximate result of such breach.'” Maro v. Lewis, 697 S.E.2d 684, 688 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Fuller, 124 S.E.2d at 610). As noted, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant Liberty Mutual breached the contract at issue. Accordingly, no damages can follow “as a natural consequence and a proximate result of such breach.” Id. Even if Plaintiff could show that Defendant Liberty Mutual breached the contract, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support her alleged damages. (See Dkt. Nos. 35, 80.) Plaintiff provides only a receipt for storage unit costs (which are not covered under her policy), a handwritten itemized list of personal property that she claims was damaged, and an unconfirmed estimate from Gaskin Home Improvement. (Dkt. Nos. 35-12, 80-3, 80-6.) This purported evidence is simply insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff's burden. See Bates v. Vandroff, No. 4:17-cv-1838-SAL-TER, 2020 WL 3978173, at *4 (D.S.C. June 24, 2020) (explaining that “[e]ven ‘[i]n a default case, the plaintiff must prove . . . the amount of his damages, and such proof must be by a preponderance of the evidence'” (quoting Solley v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Inc., 723 S.E.2d 597, 603 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012))), adopted, 2020 WL 3977130 (D.S.C. July 14, 2020). In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails.
On the estimate Plaintiff provided as an exhibit to her response in opposition to the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff noted that “Mr. Gaskins needs to get in the house to do a complete estimate,” which indicates that the estimate she has provided is not a final estimate. (Dkt. No. 80-6.)
II. Breach of Contract with Bad Faith
Plaintiff's breach of contract with bad faith claim fails for similar reasons as those set forth in Section I above. To succeed on a bad faith failure to pay insurance benefits claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) the existence of a mutually binding contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant; (2) refusal by the insurer to pay the benefits; (3) resulting from insurer's bad faith or unreasonable action in breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising on the contract; [and] (4) causing damage to the insured.” Kelaher v. Connell & Conner, P.C. v. Auto-Owners, Ins. Co., 440 F.Supp.3d 520, 531 (D.S.C. 2020). Where an insurer possesses “a reasonable ground for contesting a claim, there is no bad faith.” Crossley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 415 S.E.2d 393, 397 (1992). As described above, Plaintiff cannot establish the existence of a mutually binding contract of insurance between herself and Defendant Liberty Mutual. (See supra at 6-7.) This failure precludes her breach of contract with bad faith claim. Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of her alleged damages, which is also fatal to her claim. (See supra at 10-11.)
Plaintiff cannot establish the second and third elements of her breach of contract with bad faith claim because Defendant Liberty Mutual did not refuse to pay any benefits that were due under the policy at issue. As noted above, the undersigned finds convincing Defendant Liberty Mutual's arguments and evidence showing that it was entitled to deny coverage to Plaintiff because she did not comply with certain conditions of her contract when filing her claim. (See supra at 710.) Accordingly, Defendant Liberty Mutual did not wrongfully refuse to pay benefits due to Plaintiff. See e.g., Romero v. Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co., 663 F.Supp.3d 489, 498-99 (D.S.C. 2023) (finding no wrongful refusal to pay benefits where insurance company was entitled to deny coverage under the policy). Further, Plaintiff has provided only speculation and conjecture regarding Defendant Liberty Mutual's purported bad faith. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 35, 80.) By contrast, Defendant Liberty Mutual has provided an affidavit from an insurance claims expert indicating that Defendant Liberty Mutual has an objectively reasonable basis to deny Plaintiff's claim. (Dkt. No. 65-10.) Based on this record, the undersigned simply cannot find that Plaintiff satisfies this prong of her breach of contract with bad faith claim, even when construing all of Plaintiff's evidence as true and drawing any justifiable inferences in Plaintiff's favor. See The News & Observer Publ'g Co., 597 F.3d at 576 (noting that the court must take nonmoving party's evidence as true and draw all justifiable inferences in nonmoving party's favor when ruling on a motion for summary judgment).
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact that would preclude this Court from granting Defendant Liberty Mutual's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 65). As such, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant Liberty Mutual's Motion (Dkt. No. 65) be GRANTED, and that this case be dismissed in full.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 65).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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).