SunTrust Mortgage Inc v. Bailey et al

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, remanding the action to state court. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 09/30/2014. (bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., C/A No. 3:14-cv-2006-JFA Plaintiff, v. ORDER James Bradley Bailey; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan, Trust 2005-4 Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-4; Bobbie L. Price, Defendants. Defendant Bradley Bailey purports to remove a state foreclosure action (Civil Action No. 10-CP-32-987) associated with property located at 310 Shadowfield Drive, West Columbia, South Carolina based on federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 sua sponte prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this action be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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. The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on August 7, 2014. (ECF No. 17). However, no objections were filed. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an 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). 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 remands this case back to state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 30, 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?