Sluder v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 40 ) and incorporates it herein, and the Court remands this case to the Horry County Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/15/2017. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

Marilyn Sluder,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC;
)
Bank of America, N.A.; Rogers
)
Townsend & Thomas, P.C.; and
)
LSF9 Master Participation Trust,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-3199-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Marilyn Sluder’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint,
which arises out of her attempts to modify her mortgage loan and avoid foreclosure of her
property. Plaintiff originally filed her complaint in state court, but Defendants removed the
case to federal court based upon the presence of federal questions under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2617, and the Truth in Lending Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1601.
On September 27, 2016, Defendant Rogers Townsend & Thomas, P.C., filed a
motion to dismiss, and on October 5, 2016, the other Defendants also filed a motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motions on July 24, 2017. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On July 25,
2017, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III issued a report and recommendation
(“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s claims and recommending that the case be remanded to the
Horry County Court of Common Pleas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice
advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days
of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 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) (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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this case should be remanded to the Horry County Court of Common Pleas for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction in light of the principles of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 40) and
incorporates it herein, and the Court remands this case to the Horry County Court of
Common Pleas.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 15, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

3