Opinion
C/A No. 7:06-1012-RBH.
May 12, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility of making 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 and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The plaintiff filed this action against an automobile dealership in Spartanburg, South Carolina, an employee of the dealership, and "all agents in active concert", alleging "bad faith and fraud" in connection with a warranty on a vehicle. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Catoe for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, who entered a Report and Recommendation filed April 3, 2006 and mailed to the plaintiff on April 21, 2006.
Based on his review of the record, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the case should be dismissed without issuance and service of process based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge advised petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the report. No objections have been filed in this case; instead, the plaintiff filed a letter on April 28, 2006, stating: "The caption is wrong on this case and for this reason F.R.C.P. rule 59-60 is issued to reopen the case."
The Complaint filed by the plaintiff lists Quintin M. Littlejohn and Mary Elnora Littlejohn as plaintiffs but is signed only by Quintin Littlejohn. The Court surmises that the reason the plaintiff states that the caption is incorrect is that the Clerk of this Court listed only Quintin M. Littlejohn as a plaintiff on the records in the case.
"An individual unquestionably has the right to litigate his own claims in federal court . . . See 28 U.S.C.A. 1654 (West 1994) . . . The right to litigate for oneself, however, does not create a coordinate right to litigate for others. . . The reasoning behind this rule is two-fold: it protects the rights of those before the court . . . and jealously guards the judiciary's authority to govern those who practice in its courtrooms." Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools, 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the plaintiff Quintin M. Littlejohn is authorized to represent himself pro se but cannot represent Ms. Littlejohn in this Court. Moreover, Ms. Littlejohn has not signed the Complaint, so she has not attempted to represent herself. Therefore, she could not proceed as a party to the case.
The record does not reflect that the plaintiff was directly informed that Ms. Littlejohn could not proceed under the Complaint as written. However, since Quintin Littlejohn has filed no objections to the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the case should be dismissed based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and there is no evidence that the addition of Mary Elnora Littlejohn as a party would confer jurisdiction on this Court, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed the Report, pleadings, and applicable law. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.