The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Haiyan Lin, C/A No. 3:22-cv-3740-JFA-PJG
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Rusty Brown, doing business as, American
Auto Sales,
Defendant.
Plaintiff, Haiyan Lin (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se, filed the state law breach of
contract action in this Court pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.),
the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.
On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant, Rusty Brown,
doing business as, American Auto Sales (“Defendant”). Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for fraud, breach of contract, and fraudulent conversion. (ECF No. 1). On January 4, 2023,
Defendant appeared and filed a motion to dismiss. In his motion, Defendant argues that
Plaintiff filed an identical lawsuit in Sumter County Court of Common Pleas, and he filed
an Answer in the state court prior to filing the instant motion. Defendant argues this Court
should abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Colorado River Water
Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 802 (1976). On March 10, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, and on March 27, 2023, Defendant filed a reply.
(ECF Nos. 35 & 45).
After reviewing the Complaint as well as the instant Motion, the Magistrate Judge
assigned to this action1 issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF
No. 55). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines Defendant’s motion should be
denied. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
The parties were advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on
the docket on May 10, 2023. Id. The Magistrate Judge required the parties to file objections
by May 24, 2023. Id. Neither party filed any objections, and thus, this matter is ripe for
review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Specifically, the Report uses the factors set forth in vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, 849
F.3d 163, 167 (4th Cir. 2017) to decide whether to apply the Colorado River abstention to
1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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).
this case. The factors set forth in vonRosenberg for a court’s consideration are the
following:
(1) whether the subject matter of the litigation involves property where the first
court may assume in rem jurisdiction to the exclusion of others; (2) whether the
federal forum is an inconvenient one; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal
litigation; (4) the relevant order in which the courts obtained jurisdiction and
the progress achieved in each action; (5) whether state law or federal law
provides the rule of decision on the merits; and (6) the adequacy of the state
proceeding to protect the parties’ rights.
vonRosenberg, 849 F.3d at 168 (quoting Chase Brexton Health Servs., Inc. v. Maryland,
411 F.3d 457, 463 (4th Cir. 2005)). After considering these factors in light of the facts of
this case, the Magistrate Judge ultimately concludes that abstention is not appropriate at
this time. Because the parties did not file objections to the Report, this Court may adopt
the Report without explanation. . See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Therefore, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 55) in full
and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 1, 2023 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge