Patel v. BMW Financial Services NA et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 21 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/8/17. (alew, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BMW Financial Services NA LLC; and
BMW Bank of North America,
Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-03270-JMC
Anjay Patel (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action in state court seeking an
unspecified amount of damages. (ECF No. 1-1.) BMW Financial Services NA LLC and BMW
Bank of North America (“Defendants”) removed this action on September 30, 2016. (ECF No.
This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’ Report
and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on February 6, 2017, recommending that this court
remand the action to the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County on the grounds that this
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff stipulated that the amount in controversy
does not exceed $75,000.
(See ECF Nos. 18, 20, 21.)
The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that this court impose no costs as removal was not improper given the facts then
known to Defendants. (ECF No. 21.) The Report details the relevant facts and legal standards
on this matter, and this court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without
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 that 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 reviews de novo only those portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report to which
specific objections are filed, and it reviews those portions not objected to—including those
portions to which only “general and conclusory” objections have been made—for clear error.
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). 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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report “within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service” of the Report (ECF No. 21 at 3). However, Plaintiff filed no
objections. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby, 718 F.2d at
199. Furthermore, failure to timely 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); 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,
this court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and ACCEPTS
the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, this court REMANDS this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County
and imposes no costs on Defendants. Furthermore, the remaining pending Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) will be more properly considered by the Court of Common
Pleas for Spartanburg County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
March 8, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?