MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Campbell, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/3/16 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed 3/3/16 (ECF No. 12 ) are adopted in full; Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4 ) is granted; This action is remanded to state c ourt under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of federal jurisdiction; The IFP application (ECF No. 2 ) is denied as moot; and Plaintiff's pending motion to remand the case to state court (ECF No. 14 ) also is denied as moot. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MTGLQ Investors, L.P.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-2317 KJM AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

RICHARD CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE
CAMPBELL, STEPHEN HARMON, and
DOES 1-5,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21).
On March 3, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

21

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 12. Neither party has

23

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

25

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

26

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed

27

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

28

the proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2016 (ECF No. 12) are adopted in

3

full;

4

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4) is granted;

5

3. This action is remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of federal

6

jurisdiction;

7

4. The IFP application (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot; and

8

5. Plaintiff’s pending motion to remand the case to state court (ECF No. 14) also is

9
10

denied as moot.
DATED: June 3, 2016.

11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2