Trust et al v. Davis et al

Filing 16

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 5 Motion to Remand to State Court; denying 6 Motion to Strike. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/5/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington
Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its
individual capacity, but solely as owner
trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust;
Bank of America, N .A.,
Plaintiff

v.

Case No 2:17-cv-1502

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER AND OPINION

)
)
)

)

Cornell D. Davis; Juliett Marsh-Davis;
American Express Centurion Bank; and
Carriage Lane Homeowners Association,
Inc. ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R. ") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 13) recommending that Plaintiff Christina Trust's motion to remand
(Dkt. No. 5) be granted or, in the alternative, that this action be remanded sua sponte for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons below, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of
the Court. Plaintiffs motion to remand (Dkt. No . 5) is granted. Defendant's motion to strike
Plaintiffs motion to remand (Dkt. No. 6) is denied for the same reasons.

I.

Factual Summary
Defendant Juliett Marsh-Davis is proceeding pro se . She filed a notice of removal on

June 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court, and Defendant
Marsh-Davis filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs motion to remand. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6). In the R. &

R., the Magistrate determined that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this
state law foreclosure action. (Dkt. No. 13.) The Magistrate discussed each of Defendant's
arguments in turn and explained why, for example, the Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Foreign

-1-

Registration Act (FARA), 22 U.S .C. § 611 , et. seq., do not confer federal subject matter
jurisdiction on this Court.

II.

Legal Standard - Magistrate's Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation

has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which specific objection is
made . Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."
636(b )(1 ).

28 U.S.C . §

Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life &

Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
III.

Discussion
Defendant has filed timely objections to the Magistrate's R. & R. (Dkt. No. 15.) These

objections do not specifically address any legal or factual finding in the R. & R. For example,
Defendant asserts that she is "an American and not a Corporation" and that the R. & R. failed to
address her question: "can a corporation/entity bring a suit or charges against an American
National. " (Id. at 1.)
As Defendant has not specifically objected to any portion of the R. & R., the Court need
only satisfy itself that the Magistrate has made no clear error on the face of the record. Finding
no clear error in the Magistrate's determination that this Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this case, the Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court.

-2-

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court.
Plaintiffs motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5) is granted, and Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs
motion to remand (Dkt. No. 6) is denied.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
September ~, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-3-