Schrock v. Palmetto Health
ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 12/5/2017. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Lynn Schrock, Jr.,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2651-CMC
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging negligence by Palmetto
Health. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e),
D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial
proceedings. On November 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending Plaintiff’s Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 10. The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections and the
time for doing so has passed.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection
is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made
by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“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.”) (citation omitted).
After considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the Report’s recommendation the matter be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While Plaintiff cites statutes in his Complaint, they appear
to be South Carolina Code statutes and do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. As noted by
the Magistrate Judge, complete diversity of the parties does not exist. Accordingly, the court
adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
December 5, 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?