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

Melanie Gerard, ) C/A No. 7:25-cv-04276-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Roseanne George; Joseph D. Weiler, ) Jr.; Weiler Law Group; Frank ) Cherniawski; Wealth Management; ) SEI Private Trust Company; Madison ) Avenue Securities, LLC; Pershing, LLC; ) Does 1–20, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on the notice of removal, Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”), and motion to stay. ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On May 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be remanded to the Michigan probate court and find as moot Plaintiffs’ motions for TRO and to stay. ECF No. 10. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time to do so has lapsed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the

Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. As this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, the action is REMANDED to the Saginaw County Probate Court in Michigan. The motions for TRO [4] and to stay [5] are MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge July 30, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina