Holloman v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health
Filing
22
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, denying 6 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 10/07/2014. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Carole Holloman,
C/A No. 3:14-cv-1136-JFA
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
South Carolina Department of Mental Health
Defendant.
Carole Holloman (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Kershaw
County asserting claims for breach of contract against her former employer, the South Carolina
Department of Mental Health (“Department”). The Department removed the case to federal
district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1146(b)(3), asserting jurisdiction based on
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff moved to remand this
case back to state court. (ECF No. 6).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this court should deny the motion to remand filed
by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 17). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
law on this matter, and this court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
1
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on September 11, 2014. However, Plaintiff did not file objections. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give an explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and
denies Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 7, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?