Wise v. South Carolina Department of Revenue

Filing 11

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 8 Report and Recommendation, summarily dismissing petition with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/6/2017. (mdea ) (Main Document 11 replaced on 11/7/2017) (mdea, ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Roselyn Wise, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) South Carolina Department of Revenue, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) C/A No. 3:17-2448-MBS ORDER AND OPINION On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff Roselyn Wise, proceeding pro se, filed a “Petition for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the State Employee Grievance Committee” against her former employer, Defendant South Carolina Department of Revenue. 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 petition pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On October 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she determined the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed no 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. This court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. 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. As the Magistrate Judge properly found, the court lacks diversity or federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Moreover, federal courts have no appellate jurisdiction over decisions of quasi-judicial proceedings of state agencies such as is issue herein. See Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs, 827 F.3d 314, 319 (4th Cir. 2016). The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s petition is summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina November 6, 2017 2

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?