United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's (1)
order denying Plaintiff's motion to recuse and (2) Report
and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending
summary dismissal of this case. See ECF Nos. 6, 7, 8,
11, & 14.
Objections to Order Denying Motion to Recuse
objects to the Magistrate Judge's order denying recusal
of himself and the undersigned district judge. See
ECF Nos. 6, 7, & 14. Plaintiff's motion to recuse is
a nondispositive matter,  and therefore the Court must affirm the
Magistrate Judge's order unless it is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see, e.g.,
Kiser v. Ferris, 2009 WL 1770084, at *1 (S.D. W.Va.
June 16, 2009) (recognizing a motion to recuse is a
nondispositive matter). The Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff has not established
extrajudicial bias warranting disqualification of the
Magistrate Judge or the undersigned. See ECF No. 6
at p. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 455, the judicial
disqualification statute). Plaintiff's contentions all
relate to judicial rulings made by the Magistrate Judge and
the undersigned, which are not a basis for recusal. See
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)
(“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a
valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”); In
re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987) (“The
nature of the judge's bias must be personal and not
judicial.”). Accordingly, the Court will affirm the
Magistrate Judge's order because it is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law.
Objections to R & R
objects to the Magistrate Judge's R & R recommending
summarily dismissal of the Notice of Removal in this case.
See ECF Nos. 8 & 11.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which specific objections
have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party makes only
“general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate
[Judge]'s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the
Court reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005), and the Court need not give any explanation for
adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff purports to remove a case-his state post-conviction
relief (“PCR”) appeal-from the South Carolina
Supreme Court to this federal district Court. This is
Plaintiff's second attempt to do so, see Cleveland v.
State of South Carolina, No. 4:17-cv-02138-RBH (D.S.C.)
(Plaintiff's first attempt), and the Magistrate Judge
thoroughly and correctly explains why Plaintiff cannot
proceed in this fashion. See R & R at pp. 1-3. The
Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, and therefore must
dismiss Plaintiff's purported Notice of
foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff's motion for an extension [ECF No. 10],
OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections,
AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's order
[ECF Nos. 6 & 7] denying Plaintiff's motion to
recuse, ADOPTS the R & R [ECF No. 8],
and DISMISSES the Notice of Removal in this
case without prejudice and without issuance and service
IS SO ORDERED.