OneWest Bank, FSB v. Bailey

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation, finding as moot 7 Motion to Remand to State Court, finding as moot 8 Motion to Alter Time Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.01. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 10/01/2015. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
OneWest Bank, FSB,

C/A No. 0:15-3846-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,
vs.
James Bradley Bailey ,

ORDER

Defendant.

James Bradley Bailey (“Bailey”) filed a notice of removal which purports to remove Civil
Action No. 2009-CP-32-00723 from the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas. (ECF No. 1.).
The putative basis for removal is federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff OneWest Bank, FSB
(“OneWest”) filed a motion seeking remand of this case to state court (ECF No. 7) and a motion to
alter and shorten Bailey’s time for response to OneWest’s motion for remand under Local Civil Rule
6.01 (D.S.C.) (ECF No. 8). Bailey filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 11).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation
wherein she recommends that this Court remand this matter to state court sua sponte for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13). The Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and
standards of law in this matter, and the Court incorporates such without a recitation.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge opined that this Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the action both because Bailey failed to comply with removal statute and

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.
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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

because no federal questioned existed on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. As such, the
Magistrate Judge concluded the matter should be remanded sua sponte to state court.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by
reference in its entirety.
Accordingly, this Court remands this matter to state court and finds that OneWest’s motion to
remand (ECF No. 7) and motion to alter time pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.01 (D.S.C.) (ECF No. 8)
are moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 1, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2