Powers Properties LLC v Goston

Filing 15

ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that this action be REMANDED to the Anderson County Summary Court. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 6/5/18. (kmca)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON DIVISION
Powers Properties, LLC,

v.
Tyneisha Goston,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
)

C/A No. 8:18-1265-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Powers Properties, LLC, (“Plaintiff”), filed an eviction action against Defendant
Tyneisha Goston (“Defendant”) in the Anderson County Summary Court. Defendant, proceeding
pro se, removed the action to this court. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling.
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending
that this action be remanded to state court based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No.
7). Defendant filed objections to the Report on May 29, 2018. (ECF No. 13).
The recommendation set forth in the Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility
to make a final determination in this matter 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 Reports 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when

a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error
in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47
(4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the magistrate judge’s
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Reviewing her objections, Plaintiff merely contends that the Report is unconstitutional with
respect to the due process clause and the 7th Amendment and violates the Bill of Rights. Plaintiff
does not address the Report’s discussion that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
magistrate judge determined that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action
as there is no federal question or diversity jurisdiction, and recommended that this action be
remanded to the state magistrate court. The court agrees. The court is without subject matter
jurisdiction, and this action must be remanded back to the state court.
Accordingly, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 7). It is therefore
ORDERED that this action be REMANDED to the Anderson County Summary Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 5, 2018
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2