United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Successor by Merger to Chase Home Finance LLC, s/b/m to Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff,
Demetric Hayes, Defendant.
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Demetric Hayes filed a notice of removal, which purports to
remove a state mortgage foreclosure action, Case No.
2010-CP-32-669, from the Lexington County Court of Common
Pleas to this Court. (ECF No. 1). Because this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, this case is remanded to
Lexington County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
15, 2017, Defendant filed a notice of removal. (ECF No. 1).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., the case was referred to the
Magistrate Judge. On June 26, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
wherein she recommends this Court should sua sponte
remand this case to the Lexington County Court of Common
Pleas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7).
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on June 26, 2017. (ECF No. 7-9). On
July 10, 2017, Defendant timely filed objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 11). Thus, this matter is ripe for this
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objection is made,
and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge,
this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
objects to the Report in vague and nonsensical statements. He
contends “[t]his foreclosure case was removed due to
the fact that [he is] an American National state citizen,
[and he] can only be restricted by the United States
Constitution pursuant to Executive Order 13132.” (ECF
No. 11 at 1). Moreover, Defendant argues that “[t]he
petition for right to review under Title 5 USC subsection 72
is the most appropriate way to address this issue” and
the State of South Carolina “can only function as an
administrative agent in any matter” so the Lexington
County Court of Common Pleas “never had subject matter
jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction.” Id.
Finally, Defendant attaches copies of Executive Order 13132,
22 U.S.C. § 611, and the Articles of Confederation. (ECF
these objections are specific to the Report. To the extent
that they are construed to object to the Report's
analysis on subject matter jurisdiction, they fail and are
Executive Order 13132 was implemented “to ensure that
the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide
the executive departments and agencies in the formulation
and implementation of policies, and to further the
policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, it is hereby
ordered as follows.” Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (emphasis
added). The State of South Carolina and the Lexington Court
of Common Pleas are not federal executive departments or
agencies. See S.C. Const.; see also S.C.
Code Ann. § 14-5-10-20. Thus, this objection is
overruled because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
5 U.S.C. § 702 governs the right for judicial review of
federal agencies' actions. See 5 U.S.C. §
702 (“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency
action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action
within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to
judicial review thereof.”); see also 5 U.S.C.
§ 701 (“‘agency' means each authority of
the Government of the United States”). Therefore, the
statute is not applicable to this case, and Defendant's
objection based upon it is overruled.
Defendant may not attempt to raise a federal question issue
not provided for on the face of the complaint. Furthermore,
his claim does not involve the doctrine of complete
preemption. Thus, Defendant's attempt to establish
subject matter jurisdiction fails.Darcangelo v. Verizon
Commc'ns, Inc., 292 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. ...