Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Clarke et al
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 7 Report and Recommendation, remanding case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/29/2017. Clerk's Notice: Parties are responsible for supplementing the State Court record with all documents filed in Federal Court.(mdea ) Modified on 8/30/2017 to edit text (mdea, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,
Annette I. Riley Clarke, also known as
Annette I. Riley; Marlon Clarke; Cach,
LLC; Bank of America, N.A.; and
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
C/A No. 3:17-1743-MBS
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC brought this foreclosure action in the Court of Common
Pleas for Lexington County, South Carolina on or about November 7, 2014. On July 5, 2017,
Defendant Annette I. Riley Clarke removed the action to this court on the grounds of federal question
jurisdiction. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the allegations of the removal and determined that removal
was improper because more than a year passed after Defendant was served with the foreclosure
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The Magistrate Judge also determined that Defendant had
failed to obtain consent from all Defendants. Id. In addition, the Magistrate Judge determined that
the foreclosure complaint contained no federal question on its face and that Defendant is barred from
removal under the “forum defendant rule.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Accordingly, on August
9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which recommended that the
matter be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No party filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations 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. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The case is remanded to the
Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County, South Carolina, for lack of subject matter
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 29, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?