Hamilton County Job and Family Services v. Bey

Filing 13

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 4 ), OVERRULING DEFENDANTS OBJECTION (Doc. 5 ), AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 8/1/18. (jlm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
HAMILTON COUNTY JOB AND
FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAIYANAH BEY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:17-cv-855
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 4),
OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION (Doc. 5), AND
TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending this matter be remanded back to the state court from
which it was removed. (Doc. 4). Defendant filed a timely objection (“Objection”).
(Doc. 5). 1
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all

1

The Objection is not well-taken. The Objection does not offer any argument to rebut
the Magistrate Judge’s correct conclusions that (1) Defendant, an Ohio resident, may not
remove an Ohio state court case (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)) and (2) in any event, Defendant
has not established a basis for federal jurisdiction over this action.

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in
its entirety.
Accordingly:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED;

2.

Defendant’s Objection (Doc. 5) is OVERRULED;

3.

Defendant’s petition for removal (Doc. 3) is DENIED;

4.

This matter is REMANDED back to the state court from which it was
removed;

5.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order would not be taken
in good faith and, accordingly, Defendant is denied leave to appeal in forma
pauperis; and

6.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is
TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

8/1/18

Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

2