CitiMortgage Inc v. Corbitt

Filing 17

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 9 Report and Recommendation, granting 6 Motion to Remand. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/10/2015. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
CitiMortgage, Inc.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
King David Corbitt,
)
Corporate Person Corbitt,
)
King David in Propria Persona et al,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No: 5:15-cv-00100-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This matter is
before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF
No. 9), filed on January 14, 2015, recommending Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6) be
granted; and that this court remand this matter to state court. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the magistrate judge’s
recommendation herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The magistrate judge makes only a

recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 Report
and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Defendant was advised of his right to file objections to the Report (ECF No. 9 at 55).
However, Defendant filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court
is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results
in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9). The court hereby GRANTS the
Motion to Remand of Plaintiff CitiMortgage, Inc. and REMANDS this action to the Orangeburg
County Court of Common Pleas, South Carolina for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

February 10, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

2