Ball v. Allendale County Hospital et al

Filing 51

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 46 Report and Recommendation and remanding to the Allendale Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/4/2013. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
A.C., a minor by through Guardian ad Litem )
Mark D. Ball,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Allendale County Hospital,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00061-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 46], filed on November 6, 2013, recommending that this
case be remanded to the Allendale Court of Common Pleas due to the fact that the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the only remaining claim in this case and § 1367 does not permit the court
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. The Report and Recommendation sets forth
in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the
magistrate judge’s recommendation herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

The parties were advised of their rights to file objections to the Repot and Recommendation
[ECF No. 46-4]. However, no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. In the
absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results
in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 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).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and the record in this case.
The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 46]. It is
therefore ORDERED that the above listed case is REMANDED to the Allendale Court of Common
Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

December 4, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2