Hudgens v. Crescent Landing Apartments

Filing 11

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 6 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable A Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr on 7/3/18. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Latrice Hudgens,

Plaintiff,
Crescent Landing Apartments,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 6:18-cv-00856-AMQ

OPINION AND ORDER

This case arises from a state eviction action filed against Plaintiff Latrice Hudgens
(“Plaintiff”) by Defendant Crescent Landing Apartments (“Defendant”) in state magistrate’s
court. (ECF No. 1-1.) On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed her notice of removal asserting this
Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is now
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald recommending that the case be remanded to state court
due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) The Report was issued in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) for the District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge McDonald issued the Report on April 9, 2018. (ECF No. 6.) The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the right to file objections to the Report, the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report, and the serious consequences if he failed to do
so. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time
for doing so has expired.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this

Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the Report or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written
objections to the Report 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); see Wells v. Shriners
Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme Court has authorized the waiver rule
that we enforce… ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a
district court judgment that adopts a magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing of objections
with the district court identifying those issues on which further review is desired.’”) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
After a thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court finds
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and has determined that there is no clear
error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation and
incorporates the Report herein by specific reference. For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ordered that the Plaintiff’s action be remanded to state court.
ORDERED, that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted as the
order of this court, and this action is hereby REMANDED to the State Magistrate’s Court for
further action.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr.
A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr.
United States District Judge
July 3, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3
and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3