Wells Fargo Bank, NA et al v. Beck et al

Filing 19

ORDER AND OPINION re 18 ("Objection to Report and Recommendation") Motion to Reconsider filed by Cornelius J Beck, Jr. Defendant Beck's Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/20/2017. (sshe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C@RTv'ED CLEnK'S OFFICE
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
2011 OCT 2 3 1 A 8: 3LI
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo
Equipment Finance, Inc.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

Case No 2:17-t\fft~4:46--:RMG
)
)
)
)

ORDER AND OPINION

)

C.J.B. Holding & Trust Company, LLC;
Cornelius J. Beck, Jr.; Inlet Dental Center,
Inc., now known as Cameron Banks, LLC;
Seaside Surgical, Inc.; Andrews Dental
Center, Inc.; Georgetown Dental Center of
South Carolina, Inc.; South Beach Dental
Center, Inc.; Southpark Centre Property
Owners Association, Inc.; Myrtle Beach
Farms Company, Inc.; Wachesaw
Warehouses Property Owners Association,
Inc.; Patterson Dental Supply, Inc.,,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cornelius J. Beck Jr. 's Motion to
Reconsider. (Dkt. No. 18.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Reconsider is
DENIED.

I.

Background and Procedural Posture
Defendant, Cornelius J. Beck, Jr., proceeding prose, filed a notice of removal on June 2,

2017, purporting to remove Civil Action No. 2014-CP-22-1109 (a state court mortgage
foreclosure and replevin action) from the Court of Common Pleas of Georgetown County, South
Carolina. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court (Dkt. No. 4), arguing that (1)
Defendant's removal is untimely, (2) Defendant failed to secure the consent of all defendants to
the state action, that removal pursuant to § 1441 is improper because there is no federal issue
jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331 ), (3) this action cannot be removed based on diversity jurisdiction

-1-

(28 U.S.C. § 1332) because a number of the Defendants (including Defendant Beck) are citizens
of South Carolina, and (4)that removal is not proper under 5 U.S.C. § 702.
On September 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued and mailed to Defendant a Report
and Recommendation ("R. & R. ") recommending that this Court remand the case for lack of
jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15.) Parties normally have fourteen (14) days from the date of service
(i.e. the date the R. & R. was mailed to Defendant) to file written objections to an R. & R. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6(d), Defendant's deadline was extended by three (3) days from October 3, 2017
to October 6, 2017 because the R. & R. was served by mail. Defendants' Objections are dated
October 12, 2017 so are untimely. (Dkt. No. 18.) The Court construes Defendant's untimely
objections, mailed after the deadline for objections and received after the Court has ruled on the
Report and Recommendation, as a motion to reconsider.

II.

Legal Standard
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to alter or amend a

judgment but does not provide a standard for such motions. The Fourth Circuit provides "three
grounds for amending an earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d
396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). "Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments
which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor may they be used to
argue a case under a novel legal theory that the party had the ability to address in the first
instance." Id at 403 (citations omitted).

Rule 59(e) provides an "extraordinary remedy that

should be used sparingly." Id. (citation omitted).

-2-

III.

Discussion
In his Objections, Defendant Beck declares that he is an "American and not a

Corporation," that the statutes and codes of South Carolina do not comply with the United States
Constitution, and that he is entitled to have this Court consider whether a corporation can bring a
lawsuit against an American National. He further argues that because there is no allegation of an
injury to a man or a woman, there can be no case against him under the Sixth Amendment
because "no man or woman can testify that I have injured or committed a crime against them."
(Dkt. No. 18 at 1.)
Defendant Beck has not set forth any ground by which this Court may consider amending
its Order adopting the R. & R. because he does not identify an intervening change in controlling
law, identify new evidence, or identify a clear error of law.

IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Beck's Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. No. 18) is

DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
October li'b2017
CharlestJ;,south Carolina

-3-