Opinion
4:22-cv-00360-JD-KDW
03-31-2022
C. North PTL and the State of South Carolina, Plaintiffs, v. Alston Bennett, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
Joseph Dawson, III, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Kaymani D. West (“Report and Recommendation” or “Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.Defendant Alston Bennett (“Defendant” or “Bennett”) proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal that purports to remove a uniform traffic ticket, incident number 22-000518, from the Myrtle Beach Municipal Court (“Municipal Court”) to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Defendant also claims this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action because this case “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” (DE 1, pp. 2-3.)
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District 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 Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Report and Recommendation was issued on February 23, 2022, recommending this matter be remanded to Municipal Court because the Defendant failed to establish this Court's jurisdiction over the state uniform ticket for which he seeks removal. (DE 7.)
Bennett filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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).
Upon review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that matter is remanded to the Myrtle Beach Municipal Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.