US Bank NA v. Able et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand to Richland County Court of Common Pleas; adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. The attorneys/parties in this case are responsible for supplementing the state court record with all documents filed in Federal Court. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 11/13/17.(mflo, )

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

US Bank, N.A., successor trustee to Bank of
America, N.A., successor in interest to
LaSalle Bank National Association, on
behalf of the registered holders of Bear Stearns
Asset Backed Securities 1 Trust 2005-FEK,
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-1-LE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lyvonne Able and Mary Linda Smalls Able,
)
on behalf of Lyvonne Able and Mary Linda
)
Smalls Able,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No.: 3:17-cv-02100-JFA

ORDER

The pro se Defendants, Lyvonne Able and Mary Linda Smalls Able (“Defendants”), filed
a notice of removal that purports to remove a state court foreclosure action filed by US Bank,
NA, successor trustee to Bank of America, NA, successor in interest to LaSalle Bank National
Assocation, on behalf of the registered holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust
2005-HE2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-HE2 (“US Bank”). (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to
a Magistrate Judge for review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
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).
1

1

Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that the Court should remand this action back to the
Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Richland County, South Carolina. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the Court
incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The Defendants were advised of their right to file objections to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on August 31, 2017. (ECF No. 10). The Defendants filed their Objection to
the Report on September 12, 2017. (ECF No. 13). Although the Defendants filed an Objection to
the Report, none of the Defendants’ assertions within the Objection were specific objections to
the Magistrate’s Report. See (ECF No. 13). To the contrary, the Defendants stated that they
conditionally accept the Magistrate’s recommendation. (ECF No. 13 p. 11). In the absence of
specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report and Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). Therefore, this case is remanded back to
the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Richland County, South Carolina.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2