Wilmington Trust National Association v. Wetzel et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, remanding this case to the Court of Common Pleas of York County for further proceedings, and denying defendants' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, for 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Debra Wetzel, 9 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on September 26, 2016. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Wilmington Trust National Association,
as Successor Trustee to CitiBank, N.A.,
as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset-Backed
Securities I Trust 2005-CL1 Asset
Backed Certificates, Series 2005-CL1

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Debra Wetzel and Richard Wetzel,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:16-1115-TLW

ORDER

Defendants Debra Wetzel and Richard Wetzel (“Defendants”), proceeding pro se, filed a
Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, to remove the instant mortgage foreclosure action brought in York
County, South Carolina by Plaintiff Wilmington Trust National Association, as Successor Trustee
to CitiBank, N.A., as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2005-CL1, AssetBacked Certificates, Series 2005-CL1 (“Plaintiff”). Defendants also filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on April 18, 2016 by United States Magistrate Judge
Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC. ECF No. 9. In the Report,
the Magistrate Judge recommends remanding the case, sua sponte, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and denying Defendants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The deadline for
objections was May 5, 2016, however, Defendants failed to file objections to the Report. The
matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to

1

which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to
the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it
accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. The Court notes that Defendants did not
file objections. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report is ACCEPTED. ECF No. 9. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the case is REMANDED to the Court of Common
Pleas of York County, South Carolina for further proceedings, ECF No. 1, and Defendants’ Motion
to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten_____________
TERRY L. WOOTEN
Chief United States District Judge
September 26, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2