Awkard v. Rammelsburg et al

Filing 327

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the 296 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendant Myrtle Beach Homeowners' Association, Inc's partial motion to dismiss 196 is GRANT ED and Plaintiff's motion to amend 205 is DENIED. All remaining motions [ 284 , 307 , 312 , 324 ] are FOUND as MOOT. Other Unknown/Unnamed Individuals are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court finds that Pl aintiff is a resident of South Carolina for purposes of determining whether jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; accordingly, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to her ability to file this action in state court. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 6/14/2019. (prou, )

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

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Sharon Rammelsberg, Saundra Lavon )
Herrmann, Sharri Una Rammelsberg, )
Myrtle Beach Resort Homeowners’
)
Association Inc., Williams Douglas
)
Management Inc., Other Unknown/
)
Unnamed Individuals,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 4:17-cv-01542-DCC-KDW

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Myrtle Beach Resort Homeowners’
Association, Inc.’s (“HOA”) motion for partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint
and Plaintiff’s motion to amend her amended complaint. ECF Nos. 196, 205. Plaintiff
filed a response in opposition to HOA’s partial motion to dismiss. ECF No. 281. The
remaining Defendants filed responses in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and
Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF Nos. 208, 211, 213, 214. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). On May 1, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending, in part, that the partial motion to dismiss be granted and the motion to
amend be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and

requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they
failed to do so. Neither party has filed objections, and the time to do so has lapsed.1
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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
Here, the Magistrate Judge recommends as follows: that HOA’s partial motion to
dismiss be granted leaving only state law claims against it; that Plaintiff’s motion to amend
be denied making the only viable claims in the operative amended complaint those for
constructive

eviction

and

negligent

supervision

1

against

Defendants

Sharon

Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to the Report, which the Court
granted. Plaintiff’s objections were due by June 7, 2019; to date she has not filed
objections to the Report. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to
the pending motion to compel on June 10, 2019. ECF No. 324. The Court has reviewed
this filing and is unable to construe it as objections to the Report.
2

Rammelsberg, Sharri Una Rammelsberg, and Saundra LaVon Herrmann, and negligent
supervision and intentional interference with contractual relations against Defendants
William Douglas Management Inc. and HOA; that the Court find Plaintiff to be a citizen of
South Carolina for purposes of determining whether jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332, and, therefore, find that such jurisdiction does not exist; and that the Other
Unknown/Unnamed Individuals be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Magistrate
Judge also provided a thorough recitation of the applicable law and factors to be
considered in deciding whether this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. She left this decision to the undersigned.
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error an agrees with the recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge.
Moreover, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
state law claims. In making this decision, the Court has considered “convenience and
fairness to the parties, the existence of underlying issues of federal policies, comity, and
considerations of judicial economy.” See Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir.
1995). The Court finds that there are no remaining underlying issues of federal policy
and judicial economy will not be served by keeping this action in federal court.
Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state
law claims.

3

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. Defendant Myrtle Beach Homeowners’ Association, Inc’s partial motion to dismiss
[196] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to amend [205] is DENIED. All remaining
motions [284, 307, 312, 324] are FOUND as MOOT.

Other Unknown/Unnamed

Individuals are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court
finds that Plaintiff is a resident of South Carolina for purposes of determining whether
jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; accordingly, the Court does not have
original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Finally, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to her ability to file this
action in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 14, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4