Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Bryant et al
ORDER RULING ON 9 Report and Recommendation. The Court concurs in the Report and Recommendation. The complaint is remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 1/15/2016. (vdru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
) C/A No. 2:15-4726-MBS
Joyce A. Bryant and Antonio Bryant,
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a complaint for the foreclosure of a real estate
mortgage in the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Dorchester, South Carolina, on June 4,
2014. On November 23, 2015, Defendant Joyce A. Bryant removed the action to federal court
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 95(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1481.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint and removal documents and determined the complaint alleges no federal
question jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge further determined that Defendant Joyce A. Bryant, as
a South Carolina resident, is without authority to remove the within action on the basis of diversity
of citizenship. Accordingly, on December 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that the case be remanded to state court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1447(c), 1331, 1332. No party filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The complaint is remanded to state court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 15, 2016.
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?