Navitas Credit Corp. v. Richard Pauwels and Samantha Coker, also known as Samantha Boatwright

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05421
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

psEs DISTR ey. ey 9

□ ae ZS Osu”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION NAVITAS CREDIT CORP., § Plaintiff, § § VS. § Civil Action No.: 3:25-5421-MGL-SVH § RICHARD PAUWELS and SAMANTHA § COKER, also known as Samantha Boatwright, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND, AND AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STAY Plaintiff Navitas Credit Corp. (Navitas) brought this civil action in the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants Richard Pauwels and Samantha Coker, also known as Samantha Boatwright, (collectively, Defendants). Defendants, who are representing themselves, removed the case to this Court. The Court has jurisdiction as per 28 U.S.C.§ 1332. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court deny Navitas’s motion to remand. Also, in the Report, the Magistrate Judge denied Defendants’ motions to stay. The Report and rulings were 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 August 19, 2025. Defendants filed objections on

September 2, 2025, but Navitas failed to reply. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ objections but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. Here, Defendants have neglected to present any specific objections to the Report. Their objections amount to general disagreements with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and merely repeat allegations the Magistrate Judge properly considered, addressed, and rejected. To the extent Defendants have brought any new arguments in their objections, they are conclusory and so lacking in merit as to make any discussion of them unnecessary. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the Report and the record de novo. Suffice it to say, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination Navitas’s motion to remand should be denied.

Thus, the Court will overrule Defendants’ objections. Inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Defendants of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 10, they have waived appellate review. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding general objections are insufficient to preserve appellate review). The Court notes Defendants’ objections relate solely to the portion of the Report in which the Magistrate Judge denied their motions to stay. But, even if the Court construed such objections as appeals, the Court should reverse a Magistrate Judge’s ruling only if it is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 337 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Mosko, 515 F.3d 319, 324 (4th Cir. 2008)). Having reviewed the ruling and the record de novo, the Court is unable to discern any mistake by the Magistrate Judge sufficient to warrant reversal. Accordingly, the Court will also affirm the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Defendants’ motions to stay. After a thorough review of the Report and record in this case under the standards set forth

above, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Navitas’s motion to remand is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Defendants’ motions to stay is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 9th day of December 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of their 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.