Rebecca Theresa Kalfa v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, their Trustees and their Principals; Corporate Officer R.N.E.S.; Mark Foley; Whitney Wince

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Rebecca Theresa Kalfa, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-12979-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, their ) Trustees and their Principals; ) Corporate Officer R.N.E.S.; Mark ) Foley; Whitney Wince, ) ) Defendants. ) This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 14; 18.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings.

On October 14, 2025, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint. [Doc. 1.]

On October 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to bring her case into proper form. [Doc. 6.] The Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on December 8, 2025. [Doc. 14.] On December 23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the action be summarily dismissed because the Complaint and Amended Complaint “contain very few factual allegations; fail to explain how the cited cases, statutes, constitutional provisions, and court rules apply to the claims asserted; and fail to establish a claim for relief that is cognizable in this Court.” [Doc. 18 at 9; see id. at 9–25.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. [Id. at 26.] Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed.

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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.

Accordingly, this action is summarily DISMISSED without further leave to amend and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge January 23, 2026 Greenville, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.