United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Sharon R. Wazney, Plaintiff,
Robert W. Wazney, #363679, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. The Defendant,
proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal in an effort to
remove an action for divorce to federal court that was
initially filed in Sumter County Family Court and then
appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. In his
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McDonald
recommends remanding this case for lack of subject matter
Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific.
Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party's right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the
district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
review, the court finds that many of the Defendant's
objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive
portions of the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation, or merely restate his arguments. However, the
court was able to glean one specific objection. The Defendant
argues that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists
because the state court judge in his divorce proceeding
discriminated against him based on his race. (Objs. 5, ECF
No. 19.) Divorce proceedings are within the province of the
state courts. Ex Parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94
(1890) (noting that the “whole subject of the domestic
relations of husband and wife . . . belongs to the laws of
the states, and not to the laws of the United States”);
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006)
(“[D]ivorce, alimony, and child custody decrees remain
outside federal jurisdictional bounds[.]” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, “[i]t is a
well-settled principle that a plaintiff may not seek a
reversal in federal court of a state court judgment simply by
casting his complaint in the form of a civil rights
action.” Reed v. Terrell, 759 F.2d 472, 473
(5th Cir. 1985). Thus, the federal court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
the Defendant has already previously attempted to remove this
same action, and the case was remanded to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Wazney v.
Wazney, C/A No. 3:17-cv-2873-HMH-KFM, 2018 WL 1515281
(D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2018), Report and Recommendation adopted by
2018 WL 1491691 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2018), appeal dismissed, 735
Fed.Appx. 835 (4th Cir. Aug. 28, 2018)
(unpublished). Based on the foregoing, after a thorough
review of the magistrate judge's Report and the record in
this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald's
Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
that this case is remanded to the Sumter County Family Court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and it is designated
a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
It is further
that Defendant's pro se motion for extension of time to
file objections, docket number 18, is denied as moot.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified that they have the right to
appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of
 The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District 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. The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made ...