State of South Carolina v. McBride

Filing 11

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, remanding this matter to state court, for 8 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on November 3, 2014. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES THOMAS MCBRIDE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-1371-TLW

ORDER
Defendant James Thomas McBride filed a notice of removal purporting to remove
criminal prosecution 2013GS3206035 from the Lexington County Court of General Sessions to
the United States District Court. (Doc. #1). This matter is before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V.
Hodges, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court remand
the matter to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. #8). Petitioner filed timely
objections to the Report on May 5, 2014 (Doc. #10), and this matter is now ripe for disposition.
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s

review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Petitioner’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #8), and Petitioner’s objections thereto are
OVERRULED (Doc. #10). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this matter is
REMANDED to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
November 3, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina