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, )

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