Trust et al v. Davis et al, No. 2:2017cv01502 - Document 16 (D.S.C. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 5 Motion to Remand to State Court; denying 6 Motion to Strike. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/5/2017.(ssam, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Trust et al v. Davis et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity, but solely as owner trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust; Bank of America, N .A., Plaintiff v. Case No 2:17-cv-1502 ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION ) ) ) ) Cornell D. Davis; Juliett Marsh-Davis; American Express Centurion Bank; and Carriage Lane Homeowners Association, Inc. , Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R. ") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 13) recommending that Plaintiff Christina Trust's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5) be granted or, in the alternative, that this action be remanded sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons below, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court. Plaintiffs motion to remand (Dkt. No . 5) is granted. Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs motion to remand (Dkt. No. 6) is denied for the same reasons. I. Factual Summary Defendant Juliett Marsh-Davis is proceeding pro se . She filed a notice of removal on June 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court, and Defendant Marsh-Davis filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs motion to remand. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6). In the R. & R., the Magistrate determined that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this state law foreclosure action. (Dkt. No. 13.) The Magistrate discussed each of Defendant's arguments in turn and explained why, for example, the Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Foreign -1Dockets.Justia.com Registration Act (FARA), 22 U.S .C. § 611 , et. seq., do not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction on this Court. II. Legal Standard - Magistrate's Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which specific objection is made . Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 636(b )(1 ). 28 U.S.C . § Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). III. Discussion Defendant has filed timely objections to the Magistrate's R. & R. (Dkt. No. 15.) These objections do not specifically address any legal or factual finding in the R. & R. For example, Defendant asserts that she is "an American and not a Corporation" and that the R. & R. failed to address her question: "can a corporation/entity bring a suit or charges against an American National. " (Id. at 1.) As Defendant has not specifically objected to any portion of the R. & R., the Court need only satisfy itself that the Magistrate has made no clear error on the face of the record. Finding no clear error in the Magistrate's determination that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court. -2- IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court. Plaintiffs motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5) is granted, and Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs motion to remand (Dkt. No. 6) is denied. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Judge September 2017 Charleston, South Carolina -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
