Morgan v. Mumma

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of Magistrate Judge Saporito 10 in its entirety, GRANTING pltf's motion for remand 4 & REMANDING action to Court of Commone Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/4/15. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA MORGAN, Surviving CoExecutrix and Co-Trustee under the
Last Will of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased,
Plaintiff
v.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-88
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of the report (Doc.
10) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court grant
plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 4) to remand the above-captioned action to the Court of
Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, wherein Judge Saporito
finds that defendant’s notice of removal (Doc. 1) of a state court judgment is both
untimely and procedurally improper, (see Doc. 10 at 4-10), and, following an
independent review of the record, the court in agreement with the magistrate
judge’s findings, and the court noting that defendant has objected (Doc. 11)1 to the

1

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
the district court performs a de novo review of the contested portions of the report.
See Behar v. Pa. Dep’t of Trans., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). In
this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires written objections to “specifically
identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which
objection is made and the basis for those objections.” LOCAL RULE OF COURT 72.3;
also Behar, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 389 (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. No. 07-417, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74519, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

report, and the court finding defendant’s objection to be without merit and squarely
addressed by Judge Saporito’s report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 10) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED in its
entirety.

2.

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 4) to remand is GRANTED.

3.

The above-captioned action is REMANDED to the Court of Common
Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania