(PS) Meyer v. Central Valley Flood Protection Board

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/29/2024 ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations in Full, GRANTING 3 Motion to Remand, and REMANDING this action to Sacramento County Superior Court due to this court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LIAM MEYER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:23-cv-02979-DAD-JDP (PS)
Plaintiff,

v.
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION BOARD,
Defendant.

16

(Doc. No. 3, 17)

17
18

CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION BOARD,

19

Cross-Claimant,

20

v.

21

LIAM MEYER,

22

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-CLAIMANT’S
MOTION TO REMAND, AND REMANDING
THIS ACTION TO THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Cross-Defendant.

23
24

Plaintiff and cross-defendant Liam Meyer is proceeding pro se in this civil action on

25

January 9, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

26

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

27
28

On July 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that defendant and cross-claimant’s motion to remand this action back to the
1

1

Sacramento County Superior Court (Doc. No. 3) be granted because “plaintiff was not permitted

2

to remove this action and there is no basis for federal jurisdiction.” (Doc. No. 17 at 4.) The

3

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

4

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5.) On August

5

27, 2024, plaintiff and cross-defendant filed objections to the pending findings and

6

recommendations. (Doc. No. 20.) Defendant and cross-claimant did not file any objections.

7

In his objections, plaintiff primarily repeats arguments that he had presented in his

8

opposition to the motion to remand, and those arguments were already considered and properly

9

rejected in the pending findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff also accuses the magistrate

10

judge of “showing extreme bias” and asserts that the magistrate judge “must be removed is justice

11

is to be served.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff’s accusations in this regard are inappropriate and do not

12

serve as a basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.

13

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

14

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

15

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the

16

record and by proper analysis.

17

Accordingly:

18

1.

19

The findings and recommendations issued on July 23, 2024 (Doc. No. 17) are
adopted in full;

20

2.

Defendant and cross-claimant’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 3) is granted;

21

3.

This action is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court due to this
court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

22
23

4.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

August 29, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2