Yates v. State Farm Casualty and Fire et al
Filing
19
ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation and overruling Plaintiff's objections. Plaintiff's action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 1/3/19. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Jesse Graves Yates, III,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
State Farm Casualty and Fire and
)
Michael L. Tipsord,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
Case No. 4:18-cv-00179-DCC
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 1. 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 February 21, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that this case be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed objections to
the Report. ECF No. 10.
LEGAL STANDARD
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)).
ANALYSIS
The Report recommends that this case be transferred to the Eastern District of
North Carolina because venue is improper in the District of South Carolina.
The
Magistrate Judge notes that Defendants are residents of Illinois and the events giving rise
to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Eastern District of North Carolina. In his objections,
Plaintiff states that he is a resident of South Carolina and not North Carolina as was
originally docketed. Plaintiff has not addressed the findings of the Magistrate Judge;
however, because he filed objections, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the
Complaint. After such review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that venue is
improper in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and overrules Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s action is TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 3, 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.
3
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?