Bank of America v. Baxter

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 7 Report and Recommendation, granting 12 Motion to Remand filed by Bank of America Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/3/2016. Clerks Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Court record with all documents filed in Federal Court.(mdea ) Modified on 8/4/2016 to edit text (mdea, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Bank of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Elois C. Baxter,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:16-1231-MBS

ORDER AND OPINION

Elois C. Baxter (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal that purports
to remove a foreclosure action originally filed as Case No. 2016-CP-400-1620 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina. ECF Nos. 1 at 1; 1-1.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 14, 2016, Bank of America (“Plaintiff”) filed a Lis Pendens, Summons, and
Complaint for Foreclosure against Defendant Elois C. Baxter. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff served
Defendant on March 17, 2016. See id. This foreclosure action is for property located at 204 Glen
Knoll Drive, Columbia, SC 29229. See id. On April 21, 2016, Defendant filed the instant Notice of
Removal to move the case “to this court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Proecedure 12b(1).” ECF No. 1 at 1.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for a Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on April 22, 2016. ECF No. 7. The
Magistrate Judge found that Defendant did not identify a viable basis for jurisdiction because both

1

federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction are improper. Id. Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case should be remanded to the state court. Id.
Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on May 4, 2016. ECF No. 11. In
her objection, Defendant alleges, inter alia, that “the State Court lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
[] because the Defendant ELOIS MAE CORBETT-BAXTER is an U.S. Citizen which is property of
the Federal Government.” Id. at 1.
On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand arguing the same findings as the
Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 12. On May 23, 2016, Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 13. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff’s Reply brief argues
that Defendant’s filings are “sovereign citizen” type pleadings, which are common in foreclosure
actions and fail to “offer any justification or legally cognizant argument for jurisdiction of this case.”
Id at 2.
II. DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id.
The court is charged with making a de novo review of any portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which a specific objection is made. Id. The district court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court
2

to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982). Here, neither Defendant’s objection nor Defendant’s
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand rebut the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
the case should be remanded.
The court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates
it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED and the case is remanded to the
Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, South Carolina for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge

Columbia, South Carolina
August 3, 2016

3