(PC) Kidwell v. Collins, et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the action to State Court 8 be DENIED; this matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings,signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/25/2022. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK
KIDWELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
v.

14

JASON COLLINS, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00709-JLT-BAK (BAM) (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
(Doc. 11)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. This matter

19

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

20

Rule 302.

21

The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s

22

motion to remand as construed following the filing of Plaintiff’s letter dated June 21, 2022. (Doc.

23

11.) The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days within which to file objections. (Id. at 11.) More than 14

24

days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed objections.1

25

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this

26

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations

27
28

Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Request To Go With Original Complaint, And Consent To Go Forward With Case” on
July 8, 2022. (See Doc. 13.)
1

1
2
3

to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1.

The findings and recommendations issued on June 27, 2022 (Doc. 11) are

ADOPTED in full.

4

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court (Doc. 8) is DENIED.

5

3.

This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 25, 2022

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2