Rondeau v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 36 Report and Recommendation, granting 8 Motion to Remand, and ordering that all pending motions should be decided by the state court, re 21 Motion to Com pel and 34 Motion to Amend/Correct, Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 8/22/2013. (jpet, )CLERK'S NOTICE: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the state record with all documents filed in Federal Court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections; John Ozmint, Director;
)
Warden Cohen, Warden; Miss Myers, )
Classification; Monica Count’s Wallace, )
Classification; John Doe, et. al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
Robert Rondeau, #280301,

C/A No.: 0:13-960-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Paige Gossett’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, and filed on July 25,
2013. Plaintiff Robert Rondeau, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (“SCDC”) proceeding pro se, filed this action on or about March 11, 2013.
See ECF No. 1. Defendant removed this case to federal district court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, asserting that Plaintiff’s complaint arises under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, on April 10, 2013. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand on April 23,
2013.1 ECF No. 8. Defendant filed a Response in Opposition re Motion to Remand
on May 24, 2013, and Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s response on May 30, 2013.
See ECF Nos. 19 & 24.

1

A pro se prisoner’s petition is deemed filed at the time that it is delivered to the prison mailroom to be
forwarded to the district court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d
245 (1988). In the current case, although the Plaintiff’s motion does not include the date it was
delivered to the mailroom, the postmark on the letter indicates that the letter was placed into the
mailing system on April 23, 2013. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s letter states the date of the motion as
April 23, 2013, and thus the Court will treat the motion as having been filed on April 23, 2013.

Page 1 of 4

Under established procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge Gossett
made a careful review of the pro se complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC.

Magistrate Judge

Gossett recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. Neither party
objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. For the reasons
discussed herein, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in its
entirety and grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This
Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow
for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982). A court may not construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him,
Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1993), nor is a district court required to
recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts to
unravel them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir.1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
Discussion
Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
See Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 36.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final

Page 2 of 4

determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may
also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
instructions." Id. “The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation
waives any further right to appeal.” Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829
F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see Carter v. Pritchard, 34 F. App’x 108, 108 (4th
Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the
Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
In this case, August 12, 2013 was the deadline for filing objections.

Neither

Defendant nor Plaintiff filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in this case should be
decided by the state court upon remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 4

August 22 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4