Petition for Writ of Certiorari — C. Holmes, Petitioner v. Granuaile, LLC, et al.

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

C. Holmes,

Petitioner,

v.

Granuaile, LLC, et al.,

Respondents.

APPENDIX

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A

US COA for the Fourth Circuit decision.

Appendix B

USDC-SC Charleston Division decision.

Appendix C

US COA for the Fourth Circuit denial of

petition for rehearing.

Appendix D

USDC-SC Charleston Division docket sheet.

Appendix E

Objections.

FILED: November 22, 2021

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1470

(2:20-cv-01748-BHH)

C. HOLMES, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, M.D., a/k/a Cynthia

Collie Holmes

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

GRANUAILE, LLC; J. P. WALSH, individually and as related to Granuaile,

LLC; L. WALSH, individually and as related to Granuaile, LLC

Defendants - Appellees

ORDER

The court denies the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. No judge

requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35 on the petition for rehearing en banc.

The court grants the motion to exceed the length limitations for the petition.

Entered at the direction of the panel: Chief Judge Gregory, Judge Agee, and

Senior Judge Shedd.

For the Court

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1470

C. HOLMES, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, M.D., a/k/a Cynthia

Collie Holmes,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GRANUAILE, LLC; J. P. WALSH, individually and as related to Granuaile, LLC;

L. WALSH, individually and as related to Granuaile, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at

Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-01748-BHH)

Decided: October 21, 2021

Submitted: October 19, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

/f/v" ^4

PER CURIAM:

C. Holmes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge, dismissing Holmes’ civil complaint without prejudice, and denying

her motion for reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b), Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949).

“[Dismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable ‘unless the grounds for

dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the

plaintiffs case.’” Bing v. Brivo SysLLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Loc. Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.

1993)), cert, denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021).

Here, the district court dismissed the complaint but did not direct the clerk’s office

to close the case. See id. at 611-12, 614.. Furthermore, the district court did not grant

Holmes an opportunity to amend her complaint before dismissing, and Holmes’s appeal

does not appear to indicate an intent to stand on her complaint. See id. at 612. Thus, we

conclude that the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We direct

on remand that the district court, in its discretion, either afford Holmes an opportunity to

amend or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a

final, appealable judgment We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

3

2:2G-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 08/27/20

Entry Number 19

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes,

a/k/a Cynthia Hoimes, M.D., a/k/a

Cynthia Collie Holmes,

Plaintiff,

V.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:20-1748-BHH

ORDER

Granuaile LLC; J.P. Walsh, individually )

and_asjMatMto^GrmuMe_LLC^

)

L. Walsh, individually at id as related to )■

Granuaile LLC,

)

Defendants.

)

)

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Cynthia Holmes1 (“Plaintiff’) pro se

complaint. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)

(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary

review.

On August 5, 2020, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and

Recommendation (“Report") outlining the issues and recommending that the Court

summarily dismiss Plaintiffs complaint without prejudice. In her Report, the Magistrate

Judge explained that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on the final

judgment in a prior action filed by Plaintiff against the same parties and alleging the same

claims. See Hoimes v. Granuaile LLC, et a/., No. 2:16-cv-3969-BHH, 2019 WL 350391

(D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2019), affd, 778 F. App’x 222 (4th Cir. 2019). Attached to the Magistrate

Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the

Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been

APS - 2>

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 08/27/20

Entry Number 19

Page 2 of 2

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' 20 U.3.C. § G3G(b)(1). In the absence^uf^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.”1) (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. Finding none, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report

(ECF No. 17), and this action is dismissed as frivolous.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks________

The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks

United States District Judge

August 27, 2020

Charleston, South Carolina

2

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 08/27/20

Entry Number 20

Page 1 of 1

AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

United States District Court

for the

District of South Carolina

C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes,

M.D., a/k/a Cynthia Collie Holmes,

Plaintiff

v.

Granuaiie LLC; J.P. Walsh, individually and as related to

Granuaiie LLC; L. Walsh, individually and as related to

Granuaiie LLC,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-1748-BHH

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one)'.

recover from the

___________ the amount of

_ ), which includes prejudgment

% per annum, along with costs.

O the plaintiff (name)

defendant (name)

__________________________ dollars (S

%, plus post judgment interest at the rate of

interest at the rate of

□ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

&( other:

The Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and this action

is dismissed.

This action was (checkone):

presiding, and the jury lias

•CT~ tried-by a jury with Judge

rendered a verdict.

□ tried by Judge

was reached.

decided by Judge

without a jury and the above decision

Bruce Howe Hendricks, United States District Judge,

having adopted the Repoit and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and granting the Defendant's Motion tor Summary Judgment in its

entirety.

Date:

August 27, 2020

CLERK OF COURT

s/V. Druce, Deputy Clerk

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 12/16/20

Entry Number 29

Page lot 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes,

a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, M.D., a/k/a

Cynthia Collie Holmes,

Plaintiff,

V.

>

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:20-1748-BHH

ORDER

Granuaile LLC; J.P. Walsh, individually )

and as related to Granuaile LLC;

>

L. Walsh, individually and dz> refuted ll) )"

Granuaile LLC,

)

Defendants.

>

)

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Cynthia Holmes’ (“Plaintiff’) pro se

complaint. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)

(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary

review.

On August 5, 2020, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and

Recommendation ("Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court

summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. In her Report, the Magistrate

Judge explained that this action is barred by the doctrine of resjudicata based on the final

judgment in a prior action filed by Plaintiff against the same parties and alleging the same

claims. See Holmes v. Granuaile LLC, et ai, No. 2:16-cv-3969-BHH, 2019 WL 350391

(D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2019), affd, 778 F. App'x 222 (4th Cir. 2019) (hereinafter referred to as

“the prior action”). Attached to the Magistrate Judge's Report was a notice advising

Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 12/16/20

Entry Number 29

Page 2 of 4

served with a copy. Due to an inadvertent oversight in the Clerk’s Office, Plaintiffs

objections were not electronically filed until August 31,2020, although they were received

on August 21,2020. (See ECF No. 23.) On August 27, 2020, the Court issued an order

adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report without objection. However, once the Court

learned of the error in the late filing of Plaintiffs objections, the Court promptly vacated its

order adopting the Report and reopened the matter for consideration of Plaintiffs

objections. In the meantime, Plaintiff filed a Rule 59(e) order, which the Court now finds

moot based on the Court’s oral order vacating the Couit'^ piiuj wnlleu order. (See ECF

No. 24.)

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 her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, Plaintiff first repeats largely

irrelevant portions of previous filings from both this case and from other cases she hasfiled

in this Court. Next, however, Plaintiff raises specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Report. First, Plaintiff asserts that the Court should wholly disregard the dismissal of her

prior action, see No. 2:16-cv-3969-BHH, upon which the Magistrate Judge relies in finding

that this action is barred by the doctrine of resjudicata. In support, Plaintiff asserts that the

2

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 12/16/20

Entry Number 29

Page 3 of 4

nuisance cause of action is continuing and ongoing and that, therefore, she is not barred

from filing a new claim, in addition, Plaintiff asserts that she did notconsentto the referral

of this matter to a Magistrate Judge, and she claims that the Magistrate Judge lacks

jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusion that this action is frivolous, and she objects to a number of the citations

included in the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Overall, Plaintiff contends that there was no

determination on the merits in the prior action and that res judicata therefore does not

apply, that her cause of adiun is unyuiny and uuveis a-differerTttlme period aflertffe

conclusion of her former action; and that this action presents a new nuisance cause of

action as a matter of law.

After a thorough review of Plaintiffs objections, the Court finds them wholly without

merit. As the Magistrate Judge explained, there was a final judgment on the merits in the

prior action as the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the prior

action. Moreover, despite Plaintiffs arguments to the contrary, the Court notes that

Plaintiffs complaint in this action is virtually identical to her amended complaint in the prior

action, and the Court fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the causes of action in the

lawsuit are the same as those adjudicated in the prior action. In addition, this action

involves the same parties as the prior action. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit to

Plaintiffs objections, and, for the same reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, the

Court finds that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and is subject to

summary dismissal without prejudice.

3

2:20-cv-0174S-BHH

Date Filed 12/16/20

Entry Number 29

Page 4 of 4

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report

(ECF No. 17) is adopted and specifically incorporated herein; Plaintiffs objections (ECF

No. 22) are overruled; Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) motion (ECF No. 28) is denied as moot; and

this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks

JJnited-States-Distr-ictJudge

December 15, 2020

Charleston, South Carolina

4

2:2Q-cv-G1748-BHH

Date Filed 08/05/20

Entry Number 17

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, a/k/a )

Cynthia Holmes, M.D., a/k/a Cynthia Collie )

Holmes,

)

C/A No. 2:20-01748-BHH-BM

)

Plaintiff.

)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

)

)

v.

Granuaile LLC; J.P. Walsh, individually and )

as related to Granuaile LLC; L. Walsh, )

individually and as related to Granuaile LLC, )

Defendants.

)

The pro se Plaintiff, Cynthia Holmes, brings this civil action asserting claims under state

law against Defendants. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(D.S.C.).

Although Plaintiff is not proceeding informa pauperis, this filing is nonetheless subj ect to

review pursuant to the inherent authority of this Court to ensure that the case is not frivolous.1 See

Ross v. Baron, 493 F. App’x 405, 406 (4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2012); Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh

St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000); see alsoPillayv. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17

(2d Cir. 1995)(noting that although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was not applicable where a pro se party

filed an appeal and paid the filing fee, the court had “inherent authority, wholly aside from any

statutory warrant, to dismiss an appeal or petition for review as frivolous”). “[I]t is well established

that a court has broad inherent power sua sponte to dismiss an action, or part of an action, which

l

Pre-screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is inapplicable in pro se, non-prisoner, fee-paid cases. See

Bardes v. Magera, No. 2:08-487-PMD-RSC, 2008 WL 2627134, at *8-10 (D.S.C. June 25, 2008)

(finding persuasive the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Benson v. O ’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999)

that § 1915(e)(2) is inapplicable to actions that are not pursued in forma pauperis).

(

Jf

C o r\ t y

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 08/05/20

Entry Number 17

Page 2 of 6

is frivolous, vexatious, or brought in bad faith." Brown v. Maynard, No. L-ll-619, 2011 WL

883917. at*l (D.Md. Mar.l 1,2011) (citing cases). Therefore, a court has ‘"the discretion to dismiss

a case at any time, notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee or any portion thereof, if it

determines that the action is factually or legally frivolous.” Id.; see also Carter v. Ervin, No. 14—

0865, 2014 WL 2468351 (D.S.C. June 2, 2014); Cornelius v. Howell, No. 06-3387, 2007 WL

397449, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2007), report and recommendation adopted. 2007 WL 4952430

(D.S.C. Jan. 30,2007).

L BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that she owns property on Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina, which is

adjacent to property ‘titled in the name of Granuaile, LLC, and/or J. P. Walsh and/or L. Walsh.”

Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3. She asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332, because there is complete diversity of citizenship (Plaintiff is a citizen of South

Carolina, and Defendants are citizens of Ohio) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Id. at 1-3. Plaintiff pleads claims, pursuant to South Carolina law, for trespass, nuisance,

negligence, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff previously filed an action (the Prior Action) against these same Defendants,

specifically Granuaile, LLC; James P. Walsh, individually and as related to Granuaile LLC; and

L. Walsh, individually and as related to Granuaile LLC). See Holmes v. Granuaile LLC, et al,

No. CV 2:16-3969-BHH, 2019 WL 350391 (D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2019), aff’d, 778 F. App’x 222 (4th

Cir. 2019). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Prior Action, which is nearly identical to

the Complaint in this case, in which she alleged the same claims for trespass, nuisance, negligence,

and unjust enrichment concerning a dispute as to the property adjacent to Plaintiff’s property.

Compare ECF No. 1, with Holmes, No. CV 2:16-3969-BHH at ECF No. 36. The motion for

2

2:2G-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 03/05/20

Entry Number 17

Page 3 of 6

summary judgment of the defendants in the Prior Action was granted,2 and Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration was denied. Holmes, supra, at ECF Nos. 129, 138. The Fourth Circuit affirmed

the judgment of the district court. Holmes v. Granuaile, LLC, et al, 778 F. App'x 222 (4th Cir.

2019).

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys,

Gordon v. Leeke, 574F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and a federal district court is charged with

■liberally construing a complaint filed by a jji u

litigant lu alluw“forLhc development of a

potentially meritorious case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). Even so,

the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the

pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v.

Dep’i ofSoc. Servs., 901 F.2d387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662(2009)

(outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil

actions”). In this instance, Plaintiff has not set forth a cognizable claim because her Complaint is

barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

2 The Court found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed

to present any evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to her claims: “(a)

that the construction of the driveway on the neighboring property caused an unreasonable

interference with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her property; (b) that the Defendants were

negligent in the construction of the driveway; (c) that the construction of the driveway resulted in

an unlawful trespass by Defendants onto Plaintiff’s property; or (d) that the construction of the

driveway unjustly enriched Defendants by causing a reduction in the value of her property.”

Holmes v. Granuaile LLC, 2019 \VL 350391, at *2.

3

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 08/05/20

Entry' Number 17

Page 4 of 6

“Res judicata is applied to prevent the re-litigation of claims, and thus prevent the

unsettling of a prior judgment, whether by increasing or decreasing the award or by reversing the

result.” In re Heckert. 272 F.3d 253, 258 (4th Cir. 2001); Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946

F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir. 1991). For the doctrine of res judicata to be applicable, there must be:

(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the

earlier and later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits. Martin v. Am.

Ba/icQrp.nf\.e£-Pia7i,m'4Q7'T.'3d'ij43,'()50'(A'th^2ii. 200j),AuoT CnlyBd. ufEd,uc. v. "Biltrnure Co.,

640 F.2d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 1981). Further, res judicata not only bars claims that were raised and

fully litigated, but also “‘prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were

previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the

prior proceeding.’” Peugeot Motors ofAm., Inc. v. E. Auto Distributors, Inc., 892 F.2d 355, 359

(4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 (1979)); see also Meekins, 946 F.2d

at 1057.

Here, there was a final judgment on the merits in the Prior Action, the causes of action in

the Prior Action and this lawsuit are the same, and the identity of parties is the same in the two

lawsuits. See Complaint, ECF No. 1; Holmes v. Granuaile, LLC, et al, No. CV 2:16-3969-BHH.

Thus, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to bar Plaintiff’s claims, and the present lawsuit is

subject to summary dismissal as it is frivolous. See Brown v. South Carolina, No. 3:13—2983—

MBS-PJG, 2014 WL 4826152, *2 (D.S.C. Sept. 24,2014) (determining that because prose litigant

had filed another case reasserting the same claims against the same parties as in a prior case, “all

three elements of res judicata have been met, subj ecting Plaintiff’s action to summary dismissal as

frivolous”], aff’d, 589 F. App’x 190 (4th Cir. 2015). “[District courts are not required to entertain

4

t

f

2:20-CV-01748-BHH

Date Filed 08/05/20

Entry Number 17

Page 5 of 6

duplicative or redundant lawsuits.” Cottle v. Bell, No. 00-6367, 2000 WL 1144623, * 1 (4th Cir.

Aug. 14, 2000); see also MacKinnon v. CityofN.Y., 580 F. App’x 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[w]e have

regularly upheld a district court’s authority to dismiss sua sponte a pro se complaint on res judicata

grounds”), cert, denied, 135 S.Ct. 2316 (2015); Paul v. de Holczer, No. 3:15-2178-CMC-PJG,

2015 WL 4545974, *6 (D.S.C. July 28, 2015)(holding that “repetitious litigation of virtually

identical causes of action” may be dismissed as frivolous), aff’d, 631 F. App’x 197 (4th Cir. Feb.

4,2016).

HI: RECOMMENDATION’

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court summarily DISMISS the abovecaptioned case without prejudice. See Ross v. Baron, 493 F. App’x at 406; Fitzgerald, 221 F.3dat

363-64.

Plaintiff is advised that this Report and Recommendation constitutes notice to her of

material defects in her filing.3 Additionally, Plaintiffs attention is directed to the important notice

on the next page.

Molly H. CKehy

United States Magistrate Judge

t

August 5, 2020

Charleston, South Carolina

3 Plaintiff should note that if she attempts to amend her complaint, she must file a complete,

proposed amended complaint. “A plaintiff may not amend a complaint in piecemeal fashion by

merely submitting additional factual allegations.” McClary v. Searles, No. 3:15-cv-77-FDW,

2015 WL 2259312, at *1 n. 1 (W.D.N.C. May 13, 2015). Additionally, an amended complaint

replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount

Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001)(“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily

supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”)(citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

5

2:20-cv-01748-BHH

Date Filed 08/05/20

Entry Number 17

Page 6 of 6

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and

Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the

Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[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 (4th Cir.

2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of

this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P, 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ,

"Pr^^ttdjrFiliTTg-byinail pursuant to Fedeial Rule Of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by

mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume. Clerk

United States District Court

Post Office Box 835

Charleston, South Carolina 29402

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation

will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon

such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(bXl); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

6