Willow Run Condominium Homeowners Association Inc. v. UNC 23, LLC

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R (ECF No. 10 ) of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Horry 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 Horry County Court of Common Pleas. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's motion to consolidate (ECF No. 6 ).IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 08/30/2016. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Willow Run Condominium Homeowners
Association, Inc.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNC 23, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-02706-RBH

ORDER

This matter is 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) and Local
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

See R & R, ECF No. 10. The Magistrate Judge

recommends that the Court remand this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the Court of
Common Pleas for Horry County, South Carolina. Id. at 1-2.
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).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 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).
1

Objections were due by August 29, 2016. See ECF No. 10.

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. 10] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court REMANDS this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Horry 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 Horry County Court of Common Pleas. The Court DENIES AS MOOT
Defendant’s motion to consolidate [ECF No. 6].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
August 30, 2016

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

2