Skinner et al v. Patel et al

Filing 23

ORDER adopting 20 Report and Recommendation; granting 9 Motion to Remand. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 8/17/2016. (hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Kimberly Skinner, Veronica Richardson, Andrea
Morris-Lakes, Jessica Lloyd, Lachelle Murray,
Brandi Wingfield, and Raelean Garcia,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Dezendra Patel a/k/a Devendra “Dev” Patel;
)
Darshak “Danny” Brahmbhatt; Atkinson 165, LLC )
d/b/a Raceway 957; Atkinson 164, LLC d/b/a
)
Raceway 6954; and Racetrac Petroleum, Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-01700-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing an initial, and later an amended, complaint in the Court
of Common Pleas for Florence County, South Carolina. See ECF Nos. 1-1 & 1-2. Three of the five
above-named Defendants removed the action to this Court with the consent of the other two Defendants,
alleging jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to
remand. See ECF No. 9.
The case is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 20. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Id. at 5.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 20] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to remand [ECF No. 9] and REMANDS this action to the Court
of Common Pleas for Florence County, South Carolina, for further proceedings. The Court DIRECTS
the Clerk to mail a certified copy of this Order and the R & R to the clerk of the Florence County Court
of Common Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
August 17, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2