Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Sherman O. Porterfield, Sr.’s complaint against Truist Bank. The court granted Truist Bank’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice after finding no clear error and receiving no objections.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should review the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation for clear error when neither party filed a timely objection.
- Whether the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice should be accepted.
Holdings
- When no timely objection is filed, the district court need not conduct de novo review and instead reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record.
- The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation was accepted, Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, and the Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Key quotations
“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” (315)
Factual background
The opinion contains no substantive account of the underlying dispute between Porterfield and Truist Bank. It concerns Defendant's motion to dismiss and the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Procedural history
Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, who issued a Report and Recommendation on March 13, 2026, recommending dismissal with prejudice. After no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the Report for clear error, accepted it, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice.