South Carolina, State of v. Tucker

Filing 9

ORDER adopting the 7 Report and Recommendation and remanding the action to the City of Columbia Municipal Court. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 8/30/2017. Clerk's Notice: Parties and/or attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
State of South Carolina

C/A No. 3:17-1811-JFA
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Ariel Feyetta Tucker,
Defendant.

The defendant, Ariel Tucker, proceeding pro se, filed an amended notice of
removal from City of Columbia Municipal Court removing certain traffic court matters in
which she is a defendant. She seeks to remove these matters to this court on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should remand the matter back to
the City of Columbia. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on August 11, 2017 (ECF No. 7).
1

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

However, neither party filed objections and the time within which to do so has now
expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this
court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge is correct that criminal defendants may only remove state
criminal prosecutions to federal court in rare circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442. In
addition, the Magistrate Judge properly notes that Ms. Tucker has not sufficiently met the
requirements for removal to this court.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The
Report is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is remanded to the City of Columbia Municipal Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

August 30, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2