Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Fogle et al

Filing 12

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and remanding this case to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, for 7 Report and Recommendation, Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on July 27, 2017. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Wells Fargo Bank, NA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Robert L. Fogle, also known as Robert Lee Fogle; )
East Lake Homeowners Association, Inc.
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________ )

Case No.: 3:17-cv-1415-TLW

ORDER

Defendant Robert L. Fogle, proceeding pro se, removed this case from the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas on May 31, 2017. ECF No. 1. This matter now comes before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on June 14, 2017, by
United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was previously assigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). ECF No. 7. In the
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court remand this case because there is no
federal subject matter jurisdiction. Id. On June 22, 2017, Defendant Fogle filed objections to the
Report. ECF No. 10.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. In conducting its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
1

portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report,
the Objections, and the relevant filings. The Court concludes that Defendant Fogle has not
presented evidence of federal subject matter jurisdiction in the removal documents or in the
subsequent filings. Therefore, after careful consideration, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, ECF No. 7, is ACCEPTED, and Defendant Fogle’s Objections, ECF No. 10, are
OVERRULED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Richland County Court of Common
Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
July 27, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2