France v. HomeBridge Financial Services, Inc ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Christopher James France, ) ) Appellant, ) Civil Action No. 2:21-1306-BHH ) v. ) ) ORDER HomeBridge Financial Services, Inc., ) ) Appellee. ) ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court on a pro se appeal filed by Christopher James France (“Appellant”) of an Order entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge David R. Duncan in Appellant’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. See In re Christopher James France, Debtor, C/A No. 20-03044-dd (D.S.C.). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) for the District of South Carolina, these matters was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On June 24, 2022, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court affirm the bankruptcy court’s Order. (ECF No. 19.) Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of their right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only 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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 19) without objection, and incorporates it herein, and the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge July 18, 2022 Charleston, South Carolina 2