Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Brantley et al

Filing 24

ORDER: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 19 ), grants Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 6 ), and remands this case to state court. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 11/13/2023. (gray)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr.
Cooper,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn Brantley; The United States
)
of America acting by and through its
)
agency, The Secretary of Housing and )
Urban Development; The United States )
of America acting by and through its
)
agency, The Internal Revenue Service; )
South Carolina Department of
)
Revenue; and T.N.S. LTD, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 9:23-cv-2052-BHH
ORDER

Defendant Carolyn Brantley (“Brantley”), proceeding pro se, removed this action
from state court on May 15, 2023. Plaintiff moved to remand, and although Defendant
Brantley filed a response in opposition, no other Defendant filed any notice of removal,
consent to removal, or response to the motion to remand. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On September 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant
Plaintiff’s motion remand and remand this action to state court. Attached to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the
Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. On October 4, 2023, Brantley

filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Report, which the Court
granted, giving her until November 6, 2023, to file objections. (ECF Nos. 21 and 22.) To
date, however, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that remand is appropriate. Accordingly, the
Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 19), grants Plaintiff’s motion to
remand (ECF No. 6), and remands this case to state court.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
November 13, 2023
Charleston, South Carolina

3