Muqit v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 41

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 37 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs' 28 motion to remand is GRANTED and REMANDS this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina, for further proceedings. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a certified copy of this Order and the R & R to the clerk of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' 19 motion for summaryjudgment. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 6/2/2016. (gpre, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Yahya Muqit and Tyrone Ransom,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections, )
Christopher A. Duval, and
)
Grealin D. Frazier,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:15-cv-04312-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiffs Yahya Muqit and Tyrone Ransom, state prisoners proceeding pro se, initiated this
action by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina; their
complaint asserted claims for negligence and specified the action was “brought exclusively under the
South Carolina Tort Claims Act.”1 See ECF No. 1-1. Defendants subsequently removed the action to
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and filed a motion for summary
judgment. See ECF Nos. 1 & 19. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand. See ECF No. 28.
The case is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of
United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 37. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and deny as moot Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. Id. at 4-5.
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 this Court.

1

S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10 to -220 (2005 & Supp. 2015).

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 R & R to which specific objection is made, and 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).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R.2 In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 37] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to remand [ECF No. 28] and REMANDS this action to the
Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina, for further proceedings. The Court
DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a certified copy of this Order and the R & R to the clerk of the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment [ECF No. 19].

2

The M agistrate Judge issued the R & R on April 28, 2016; that same day, the R & R was entered on the
Court’s docket and a copy was mailed to Plaintiffs. See ECF Nos. 37 & 38. The next day, April 29, the Court
received a document from Plaintiffs entitled “Objection to Magistrate R + R Order.” See ECF No. 39. Although
Plaintiffs labeled this document as an “objection,” it was actually a brief request asking for a ruling on their motion
to remand. See id. Significantly, Plaintiffs dated the document “April 27, 2016” (before the Magistrate Judge even
issued the R & R and before Plaintiffs received the R &R) and delivered it to the prison mailroom the same day. See
ECF Nos. 39 & 39-1.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
June 2, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

3