Trust v. OneUnited Bank, SC District Court, 13th Apr

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Dieuleveut Johnathan Gouani, Trustee of the Dieuleveut Johnathan Gouani Trust v. OneUnited Bank

District Court, D. South Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:25-cv-10366

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Dieuleveut Johnathan Gouani, Trustee of C/A No. 3:25-cv-10366-JFA-PJG
the Dieuleveut Johnathan Gouani Trust,

Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER
OneUnited Bank,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Dieuleveut Johnathan Gouani, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 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.
After performing an initial review of the complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued an
order directing Plaintiff to file the documents necessary to bring this case into proper form
for the issuance and service of process and advising Plaintiff of the deficiencies of his
complaint and permitting him an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 14).
That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply within the time permitted would
subject his case to dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with an order
of the court under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff did not respond
to the court’s order and the deadline to do so has passed.
Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1
(“Report”). (ECF No. 18). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this matter

should be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and failure to
prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Id. 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.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on February 26, 2026. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections

by March 12, 2026. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections. 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).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report
and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s

Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41.

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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 18). Consequently, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cader tons
April 13, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge