Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thomas et al

Filing 13

OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 7 Report and Recommendation, remanding this matter to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/3/2015. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court.(cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust
2006-1 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2600-1,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Helen Valencia Thomas, Corporate Person,
)
Washington-Thomas, Helen Valencia, all natural )
person; Darrel Antonio Thomas, Corporate Person, )
Thomas, Darrel Antonio, all Natural Person,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

C/A NO. 3:15-0023-CMC-SVH

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ pro se Notice of Removal filed in this court
on January 5, 2015.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that the matter be remanded to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas
as this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge advised the Defendants of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they
failed to do so. Defendants filed objections to the Report on January 28, 2015.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by

1

the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
The court has conducted a de novo review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Defendants’ objections. The court agrees with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and
Recommendation by reference in this Order.
Defendants’ objections seek to establish subject matter jurisdiction by providing a ground
for removal other than that provided in the original Notice of Removal. However, “[c]ourts have
no discretion to permit amendments furnishing new allegations of a jurisdictional basis.” Wood v.
Crane Co., 764 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas. The Clerk shall ensure that a copy of this Opinion and Order is
served on counsel for Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
February 3, 2015

2