Scott v. Titlemax of Columbia et al, No. 3:2009cv01032 - Document 55 (D.S.C. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 46 Motion to Compel, Motion to Dismiss; adopting 52 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/6/2012. (cbru, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Maurice Scott ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TitleMax of South Carolina Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) C/A No. 3:09-1032-CMC-JRM OPINION & ORDER Through this action, pro se Plaintiff Maurice Scott alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., against TitleMax of South Carolina, Inc. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the case. The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ( Report ) of Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C. The Report, filed on January 17, 2012, recommends that the court grant Defendant s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss this action. Dkt. No. 46. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Id. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, which were due on February 3, 2012. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that in 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. ) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee s note). The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, Defendant s motion to compel arbitration is granted and this case is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina February 6, 2012 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.