Clive Malcolm Campbell v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Clive Malcolm Campbell, C/A No. 3:25-cv-13421-JFA-SVH Plaintiff, v. ORDER First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Defendant.

Plaintiff Clive Campbell, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against Defendant regarding a car loan. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.

After the case was removed, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand (ECF No. 10) and a motion to stay pending arbitration (ECF No. 28). Additionally, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 12). After performing an initial review of each motion, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 29).

Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this matter should be stayed pending arbitration and Plaintiff’s motion to remand should be denied. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).

All parties were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on March 19, 2026. Id. The Magistrate Judge required objections to be filed by April 2, 2026. Id. No party filed objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Here, both parties failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s motion to remand should be denied and the matter should be stayed pending arbitration.

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 29). Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 10) is denied and Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this action pending arbitration (ECF No. 28) is granted. Given this determination, the court finds it prudent to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) without prejudice with leave to refile should the need arise following the close of arbitration. Moreover, the parties are ordered to provide status reports every 45 days advising the court as to the status of arbitration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dptoge 5 Comabsem gp April 17, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge