Ballard et al v. Admiral Insurance Company et al

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 32 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting 19 Motion to Remand, filed by Desa Ballard, Desa Ballard P.A. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 4/11/2018. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Desa Ballard and Desa Ballard P.A.,
d/b/a Ballard & Watson,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Admiral Insurance Company, Monitor
)
Liability Managers, Mendes & Mount,
)
LLP, Adele R. Pope, individually and as
)
Special Administrator of the Estate of
)
Gloria Corley,
)
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

C/A No. 3:17-2916-DCC

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, seeking, inter
alia, to enforce the terms of Plaintiffs’ malpractice insurance contract. ECF No. 1-1 at 2–20.
Defendants Admiral Insurance Company, Monitor Liability Managers, and Mendes & Mount,
LLP, filed a Notice of Removal. ECF No. 1. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand.
ECF No. 19. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on March 20, 2018, recommending that
the Court remand this matter to State Court. ECF No. 32 at 2. Neither party filed objections to
the Report.
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 this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71. The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the

1

Court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the
absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n 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.’”
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition)).
Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the Report by reference in this
Order. Therefore, the case is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 11, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2