James et al v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Filing 54

ORDER ACCEPTING 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Plaintiffs' ninth cause of action is DISMISSED to the extent it asserts due process violations. The Plaintiffs' third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and el eventh causes of action are REMANDED to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining claims, and thus the remaining claims are also REMANDED to state court. In light of the Court's ruling, Plaintiff James' July 26, 2013 Motion to Remand 11 , and August 22, 2013 Motion to Remand 17 , are GRANTED. Plaintiff Tomlin's Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of Time, 19 , 22 , Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 32 , and Plaintiff James' Motion for Extension of Time, Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Motion for Recusal 38 , are terminated as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/18/2014.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Isaiah James, Jr., and George Lee Tomlin,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections, )
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 1:13-cv-1936-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiffs Isiah James, Jr. and George Lee Tomlin (“Plaintiffs”), two state prisoners
proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville
County, South Carolina. (Doc. #1). The South Carolina Department of Corrections
(“Defendant”) filed a notice of removal on July 15, 2013, that purports to remove the action.
(Doc. #1). Thereafter, Plaintiff James filed two motions to remand the case to state court,
asserting that he intended to bring only state causes of action. (Docs. #11, 17, 18). Magistrate
Judge Shiva V. Hodges filed a Report and Recommendation on September 25, 2013,
recommending that this action be remanded to state court. (Doc. #23). After the Report and
Recommendation issued, Plaintiff Tomlin filed an objection but did not address federal
jurisdiction. (Doc. #25). Defendant filed objections arguing that “[t]he defendant, upon
information and belief, neither waived federal court jurisdiction, nor consented to remand in light
of Tomlin’s continued assertion of some type of federal claims.” (Doc. #29). In light of the
objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court remanded the action to the Magistrate
Judge for reconsideration. (Doc. #45).

The Magistrate Judge filed a second Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) on
January 30, 2014. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court (1)
summarily dismiss Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action to the extent it asserts violations of their
federal due process rights; (2) remand the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and eleventh
causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2), and (3) decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in light of James’ clarification that he intends to
rely solely on state law. Plaintiff James filed a document captioned as objections to the Report on
February 28, 2014. However, this objection does not raise any specific issues that impact this
Court’s accepting the Report. Notably, James has filed motions asking that his case be remanded
to state court. He asserts his claims are based only in state law. Neither the Defendant nor
Plaintiff Tomlin filed objections to the January 30, 2014 Report.
The Court has reviewed the objections. In conducting this review, the Court applies the
following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the
magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 47).

Plaintiff James’ document, characterized as an objection, (Doc. #53), is OVERRULED. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action is DISMISSED
to the extent it asserts due process violations. The Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth,
tenth, and eleventh causes of action are REMANDED to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1441(c)(2). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining claims, and
thus the remaining claims are also REMANDED to state court. In light of the Court’s ruling,
Plaintiff James’ July 26, 2013 Motion to Remand, (Doc. #11), and August 22, 2013 Motion to
Remand, (Doc. #17), are GRANTED. Plaintiff Tomlin’s Motion to Compel and Motion for
Extension of Time, (Docs. #19, 22), Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #32), and
Plaintiff James’ Motion for Extension of Time, Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Motion for
Recusal (Doc. #38), are terminated as moot in light of the Court’s ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____s/Terry L. Wooten____
Chief United States District Judge
March 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina