McElroy v. QHG of South Carolina Inc

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and adopts and incorporates by specific reference the Magistrate Judge's 27 Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the plaintiff's m otion to remand (ECF No. 9 ) is GRANTED and this action is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas, Florence County, South Carolina, for disposition. The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward the file along with a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of Court for Florence County. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/11/2015. (prou, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Vincent D. McElroy,

) Civil Action No.: 4:15-381-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
vs.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
QHG of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a
)
Carolinas Hospital System,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
The plaintiff Vincent D. McElroy (“the plaintiff”) brought this action against
the defendant QHG of South Carolina Inc., d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System (“the
defendant”). The defendant removed this action to this court on January 27,
2015. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
73.02, D.S.C., the within action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling and a Report and Recommendation.
Magistrate Judge West recommends that the plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF
No. 9) be granted and this action be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for
Florence

County,

South

Carolina,

for

disposition.

The

Report

and

Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law and
the Court incorporates them without recitation.
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71,
96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection,
the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error.

See

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the plaintiff’s motion to
remand (ECF No. 9) be granted. The defendant has not filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so expired on July 20,
2015.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and the record, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and adopts and incorporates by specific
reference the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No.
9) is GRANTED and this action is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas,
Florence County, South Carolina, for disposition. The Clerk of this Court is
directed to forward the file along with a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of
Court for Florence County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 11, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

2