United States of America et al v. Chatman et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 19 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Montgomery's motion to strike [ECF No. [1 1]], GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to remand [ECF No. 9 ], and REMANDS this matter to the Court of Common Pleas for Williamsburg County, South Carolina. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a certified copy of this Order and the R & R to the Clerk o f the Williamsburg County Court of Common Pleas. In the event that Plaintiffs still seek attorney fees and costs, they should file a supporting affidavit within five (5) days of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/25/2017. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States of America and United
States Department of Agriculture,
Germanique Chatman and
Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-01556-RBH
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, 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. 19]. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court deny Defendant Harry Montgomery’s motion to strike, grant Plaintiffs’ motion to remand,
and remand this matter to state court. R & R at p. 9. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that
the Court entertain Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees and costs. Id.
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, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
Plaintiff’s objections were due by August 14, 2017. See ECF Nos. 19 & 20.
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. 19] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Defendant Montgomery’s motion to strike [ECF No. 11], GRANTS Plaintiffs’
motion to remand [ECF No. 9], and REMANDS this matter to the Court of Common Pleas for
Williamsburg County, South Carolina.2 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a certified copy of this
Order and the R & R to the clerk of the Williamsburg County Court of Common Pleas.
In the event that Plaintiffs still seek attorney fees and costs, they should file a supporting
affidavit within five (5) days of the date of this Order.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
August 25, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, this remand is without prejudice to Defendant
Montgomery’s right to file responses to any of the state-court plaintiffs’ filings in the state court. See R & R at 9.
The Court retains jurisdiction after remand to consider an award of attorney fees and costs. See
Williamsburg Plantation, Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp., 2007 W L 445289, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2007) (collecting cases
and explaining a district court “retains jurisdiction [after remand] over collateral matters such as awards of costs and
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?