Opinion
Case No. 6:19-cv-00950-DCC
05-13-2019
JP Mac Properties, Plaintiff, v. Kristen Oglesby, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Petition of Removal. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On April 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be remanded. ECF No. 7. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has passed.
LEGAL STANDARD
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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of 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." (citation omitted)).
ANALYSIS
As explained in the Report, this matter arises from a state court eviction action. ECF No. 7 at 1. The Report recommends remand of the action because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this case either through diversity or as a result of a federal question. After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report's recommendation; accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order.
CONCLUSION
The Petition is DENIED and this action is REMANDED to the State Magistrate Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge May 13, 2019
Spartanburg, 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.