State of South Carolina v. Japheth Ashley Hutchinson

GSES DSR nS Rorsp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-765-MGL § JAPHETH ASHLEY HUTCHINSON, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING THIS CASE TO STATE COURT Defendant Japheth Ashley Hutchinson (Hutchinson), who is self represented, filed a notice of removal, seeking to remove Case Numbers 20252351333250 and 20252351333249 from Aiken Central Traffic Court to this Court. These charges are for speeding and driving without a license.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court this action be remanded to state court. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court.

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court 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).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 24, 2026, and Hutchinson filed his untimely objections on March 16, 2026. The Court has carefully reviewed the objections, but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.

The Magistrate Judge stated in the Report as follows: “[a]lthough [Hutchinson] cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), this statute, by its own terms applies only to civil actions. The traffic charges [he] seeks to remove are criminal. In the context of criminal prosecutions, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, except in certain narrow circumstances . . ., none of which appear to apply here.

Report at 3. The Court is unpersuaded by Hutchinson’s arguments to the contrary. Therefore, the Court will overrule his objections on this issue.

Hutchinson’s remaining objections are so meritless as to make any discussion of them unnecessary. Therefore, the Court will overrule those objections, too.

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Hutchinson’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court this action is REMANDED to the Aiken Central Traffic Court for further proceedings.

Additionally, Hutchinson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 18th day of March, 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina.

/s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Hutchinson is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.