Dantzler v. Time Warner Cable et al, No. 3:2015cv05100 - Document 67 (D.S.C. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 61 Report and Recommendation, granting 37 Motion to Dismiss 33 Amended Complaint without prejudice. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/6/2016. (asni, )

Download PDF

Dantzler v. Time Warner Cable et al Doc. 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Joseph D. Dantzler, Jr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Time Warner Cable; Sedgwick Claims ) Management Services, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-05100-JMC ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiff Joseph Dantzler (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County, South Carolina, seeking $415,000.00 in damages for emotional distress caused by Defendants’ alleged failure to properly handle Plaintiff’s claims under his disability insurance policy. (ECF No. 1-1.) On December 31, 2015, Defendants Time Warner Cable and Sedgwick Claims Management Services (collectively “Defendants”) removed the action to this court on the basis of this court’s diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is now before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (ECF No. 37). Plaintiff timely filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 42.) Subsequently, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 55.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige Gossett for a Report and Recommendation. On April 15, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, unless Plaintiff filed a motion 1 Dockets.Justia.com to amend his complaint and responded to the court’s interrogatories. (ECF No. 46.) This court entered an order adopting the Report and remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss in light of Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 59.) Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report on August 12, 2016, denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and recommending that this court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss because Plaintiff still failed to state a claim under ERISA. (ECF No. 61.) The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. recommendation to this court. The Magistrate Judge makes only a The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Objections to a Report and Recommendation must specifically identify portions of the Report and the basis for those objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[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, 316 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 61 at 7). Plaintiff was required to file objections by August 29, 2016. Although Plaintiff filed objections 2 on August 23, 2016, those objections were late-filed objections to the Report issued on April 15, 2016, and fail to address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in the Report (ECF No. 61) regarding Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (See ECF No. 64.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report issued on August 12, 2016. Accordingly, this court has reviewed the Report of the Magistrate Judge and does not find clear error. After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 61). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33) is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge September 6, 2016 Columbia, South Carolina 3

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.