Summary
finding that a claim for common law fraud failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)
Summary of this case from Flucker v. Gantt (In re Flucker)Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:06-3465-HFF-WMC.
March 18, 2008
ORDER
This case was filed alleging a number of causes of action regarding the finance, construction, and sale of certain real estate properties action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the claims against the remaining defendants in this action, Pamela Williams and Mark McKinney, be dismissed. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil 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 to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 14, 2008, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that the claims against the remaining defendants in this action, Pamela Williams and Mark McKinney, be DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to close this case.