Bey v. AT & T Mobility ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Yahkema Bey, ) ) C.A. No. 8:23-05076-HMH-KFM Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER ) AT&T Mobility, ) ) ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contractual relations after Defendant refused to accept a “coupon note” as payment for Plaintiff’s phone bill. In his Report and Recommendation filed on October 18, 2023, Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. (R&R 4, ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs., generally, ECF No. 14.) Objections to a report and recommendation must be specific. A report and recommendation carries no “presumptive weight,” and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court reviews de novo “those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 1 judge” or “recommit the matter . . . with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “To trigger de novo review, an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.’” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). In the absence of specific objections, the court reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and need not give any explanation for adopting the report, Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon review, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise any specific objections to the dispositive portions of the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s objections are conclusory and amount to general disagreements with the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions. Therefore, after reviewing the Report and Recommendation for clear error and finding none, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina November 6, 2023 2 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified that she has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3