Stephens Remodeling LLC v. All Occupants
ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendation and Remands this case back to Lexington County Magistrate Court. finding as moot 11 Motion to Change Venue; finding as moot 12 Motion for Declaratory Judgment Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 8/8/17.(mflo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Stephens Remodeling, LLC,
C/A No. 3:17-1762-JFA
Defendants (identified in the state court action as “All Occupants”), proceeding pro se,
filed a notice of removal which purports to remove Civil Action No. 2017-CV-32-1101122 from
the Lexington County Magistrate Court. (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
After reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) sua sponte and opines that this case should be
remanded to Lexington County Magistrate Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No.
7). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (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). The court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation 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).
Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report on July 26, 2017. (ECF No. 12).Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objections are 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). However, a district court is only required to conduct
a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection
is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the
Report of the Magistrate, 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).
Here, Defendants have made various vague and incoherent statements that fail to respond
to the Report or specifically reference any findings of fact or conclusions of law. Defendants
merely state that “We are objecting to the Report and Recommendation dated 12 July 2017.” (ECF
No. 10 p. 1). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate, 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). Therefore, the Report is adopted.
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 the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 7) and Remands this case back to the Lexington County Magistrate
Court. Additionally, all remaining pending motions are terminated as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 8, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?