Geissler v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 38

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation (ECF # 21 ) of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Motion to Remand 12 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 01/27/2021. (dsto, )

4:20-cv-02597-DCC-TER

Date Filed 01/27/21

Entry Number 38

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Russell C. Geissler,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections and Bryan P. Sterling,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No 4:20-cv-02597-DCC-TER

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. ECF No. 12.
Defendants filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 19. 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 Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 14, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that the motion be denied. ECF No. 21. The Magistrate Judge
advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report
and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to
the Report 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

1

The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time filed on November 23,
2020, and concluded that Plaintiff did not intend to request additional time to respond to
the Report. See ECF No. 31.

4:20-cv-02597-DCC-TER

Date Filed 01/27/21

Entry Number 38

Page 2 of 2

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)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the motion to remand [12] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 27, 2021
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2