Edmond v. Byars et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, re 14 Motion to Remand, Motion to Strike filed by Jesse Edmond. It is ordered that Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. This matter is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County, South Carolina. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/3/2014. (abuc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Jesse Edmond, Plaintiff, v. William R. Byars, Jr.; Joseph McFadden; Nurse Dehart; Nurse Mauney; D. Jarjeren; E. Holcomb; Unknown Healthcare Service Provider; and South Carolina Department of Corrections, each in his/her individual and personal capacity, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-446-RBH ORDER Plaintiff Jesse Edmond (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County, South Carolina. See Complaint, ECF No. 1-1. Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 20, 2014, see ECF No. 1, and Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on March 13, 2014, see ECF No. 14. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 35. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, and remand the matter to the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County, South Carolina. See id. at 5. 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 objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County, South Carolina. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina October 3, 2014 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?