Thomas v. Rene Wilkinson , et al
Filing
11
ORDER ADOPTING 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/6/2015. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSH THOMAS,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:15-cv-00527-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
ACTION
RENE WILKINSON, et al.,
(Document 7)
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Josh Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was originally filed in the Fresno County Superior
19
Court on April 21, 2014. Defendant Tehrani removed the action to this Court on April 2, 2015.
20
21
22
On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed “objections” to the removal. The matter was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
23
Plaintiff’s motion to remand be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the
24
parties and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed
25
objections on June 30, 2015.
26
27
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,
28
1
1
the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
2
analysis.
3
Plaintiff mainly repeats arguments that were properly disposed of by the Magistrate Judge.
4
As the Magistrate Judge explained, Defendant Tehrani timely removed the action to this Court, and
5
he is not in default. Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner litigant and his complaint is therefore subject to the
6
screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Defendant need not file a response unless and until
7
the Court screens Plaintiff’s complaint and determines that it states a cognizable claim for relief.
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1.
10
11
The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 28, 2015, are adopted in full;
and
2.
12
Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Document 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s complaint will be
screened in due course.
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
July 6, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?