IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Dennis Gallipeau, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-136-TMC v. ) ) ORDER ) State Law Enforcement Division, ) Richland County Sheriff’s Dep’t, ) and Caraly Alvarez, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)

Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, filed this action against Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina, (ECF No. 1-1), and Defendants removed it to federal court pursuant to

, 1446, (ECF No. 1). In accordance with

(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand this action to state court (ECF No. 10). Defendants filed a memorandum in response (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 13). On February 16, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court grant Plaintiff’s motion and remand the matter to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 17). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report.

. No party filed objections to the Report, and

the time for filing objections has lapsed. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States

District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,

(4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general

and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed. App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982)). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any

explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp.,

(D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis,

, 199– 200 (4th Cir. 1983)). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standards, the court finds no clear error,

ADOPTS the Report, (ECF No. 17), and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 10), is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for

Richland County. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina March 9, 2021

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.