United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
ORDER AND OPINION
matter is before the court pursuant to Magistrate Judge Shiva
V. Hodges' Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) for sua sponte remand filed
on June 9, 2017, recommending that the case be remanded to
state court (ECF No. 8). Defendant Samuel Capers, proceeding
pro se, filed an objection. (ECF No. 11.) For the
reasons set forth below, the court ADOPTS
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to
sua sponte REMAND this action to
state court (ECF No. 8).
31, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal that purports
to remove a child support enforcement action from the
Allendale County Family Court in Allendale, South Carolina,
Case No. 2013-DR-0095. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant alleges removal of
the action “for a right to review pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
§ 702 because the Allendale County Family Court is an
administrative court that has injured and/or [is] in the
process of injuring [him].” (ECF No. 12.) The federal
questions that Defendant alleges in his removal are:
1. “Can a corporation or entity bring charges/suit(s)
against an American National State Citizen?
2. Are the Orders of an Administrative Court enforceable?
3. Is Title 22 U.S.C §§ 611-612 still applicable in
the United States?
4. Does a Court have subject matter jurisdiction when the
party that it is suing does not have authority to sue (right
standing to sue)?”
(Id.) Defendant also claims that the court has
jurisdiction under diversity citizenship pursuant to the
theory that his citizenship is one of a “private
American National citizen” generally, but not of South
Carolina specifically. (Id.)
9, 2017, after considering Defendant's allegations, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this court
remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
party may remove a state court action to federal district
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 where the state
action would have been originally filed there. See
Darcongelo v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 292
F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2002). A case may be originally filed
in a federal district court either under 28 U.S.C. §
1332 for diversity of citizenship and an amount in
controversy greater than $75, 000.00 or under 28 U.S.C §
1331 where it arises under a federal question. A federal
court should remand the case to state court where no federal
subject matter jurisdiction is evident from the face of the
Notice of Removal or any state court pleadings provided.
Ellenburg v. Spartan Motor Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d
192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). Courts of this circuit have held
that removal statutes favor remand where possible and are
construed against removal jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Cheshire v. Coca-Cola Bottling Affiliated, Inc., 758
F.Supp. 1098, 1102 (D.S.C. 1990); Bellone v. Roxbury
Homes, Inc., 748 F.Supp. 434, 436 (W.D. Va. 1990). Where
subject matter jurisdiction is at issue, “courts are
obligated to consider sua sponte issues.”
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).
parties were advised of their right to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 8 at 5.) On June 23,
2017, Defendant filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 11.) In his
objections, Defendant essentially restates his position in
his Complaint regarding his status as ...