Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2015
Summary: Opinion and Order CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion to remand. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On November 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that (1) the matter be remanded to the state court from which it was
Summary: Opinion and Order CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion to remand. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On November 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that (1) the matter be remanded to the state court from which it was ..
More
Opinion and Order
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion to remand. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On November 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that (1) the matter be remanded to the state court from which it was removed and (2) the court decline to award attorney's fees. T
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Neither party filed objections and the time for doing so has expired.
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 reviews 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 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.") (citation omitted).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
This action is remanded to the state court from which it was removed. No fees or costs are awarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
