Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Hall et al

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 10 Report and Recommendation and this case is remanded to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 11/9/16. (mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,

C/A No. 3:16-1469-JFA

Plaintiff,
vs.
Marcus L. Hall, Rosa C. Hall, and Deer Lake
Homeowners Association, Inc.,

ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on a United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that this Court sua sponte remand this case for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 10.
Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed a state foreclosure action against Marcus L.
Hall, Rosa C. Hall, (collectively the “Halls”), and Deer Lake Homeowners Association, Inc. in
the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. ECF No. 1-1 at 21–26. On May 6, 2016, the Halls
filed a notice of removal for this action. ECF No. 1. In addition, Defendant Rosa Hall moved for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 3, which was granted on
May 31, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, ECF No. 9. No other parties have
responded or appeared in this Court with regard to this matter. ECF No. 10 at 1.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and opines that
this Court should sua sponte remand this case to the state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. ECF No. 10. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law
1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) (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).
1

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
May 31, 2016. ECF Nos. 10, 11. The Magistrate Judge gave the parties until June 17, 2016, to
file objections. Id. However, no objections were filed to the Report. Thus, this matter is ripe for
the Court’s review.
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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections to the
Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an 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 and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10. Therefore, this case is hereby
remanded to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c).
The Clerk is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order of remand to the clerk of the
state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 9, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2