Maney v. Oconee County School District et al, No. 8:2019cv00742 - Document 19 (D.S.C. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER and OPINION granting 13 Motion to Remand; adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/24/19.(alew, )

Download PDF
Maney v. Oconee County School District et al Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Oconee County School District, ) ) Defendant. ) Teresa Maney, Civil Action No. 8:19-CV-742-BHH ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On April 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Plaintiff Teresa Maney’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand (ECF No. 13) be granted, and this matter be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Oconee County, South Carolina. (See ECF No. 17.) The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Defendant Oconee County School District filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on April 30, 2019. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 13) should be granted. Accordingly, the Report (ECF No. 17) is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, and this case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Oconee County, South Carolina. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge July 24, 2019 Greenville, South Carolina ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2

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.