United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
RICHARD M. GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R R) of the Magistrate Judge that this matter be remanded to state court. (Dkt. No. 33). For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R R and REMANDS this matter to state court.
Plaintiff filed this action in state court alleging causes of action for gross negligence and negligent training and supervision. (Dkt. No. 1-1). Defendant removed the action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction and allegations of excessive force. (Dkt. No. 1). In her Motion for Remand, Plaintiff contends that her Complaint contains "no allegations... of violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or violation of any other federal statute." (Dkt. No. 94 at 1). Defendant states in its opposition brief that, RV Plaintiff confirms by way of supplemental pleading that there is no civil rights claim being raised..., the Defendant would agree that it must concede this issue and believes the case would be proper for Remand to State Court." (Dkt. No. 10 at 2). The Magistrate Judge found that South Carolina law creates the causes of action in Plaintiff's Complaint and that Plaintiff's right to relief does not necessarily depend on a question of federal law. (Dkt. No. 33 at 5, 8). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended remanding the case. (Id. at 8). Neither party has filed an objection to the R R.
II. Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Matthews 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. Diamond v. Colonial Life Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Here, however, because no objection has been made, this Court "must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff only alleges state law causes of action. ( See Dkt. No. 1-1). The Court also agrees that, for the reasons stated in the R R, Plaintiffs right to relief on her negligence claims does not necessarily depend on a question of federal law.
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R R in full and REMANDS this action to the Court of Common Pleas for ...