State of Tennessee v. Harvey

Filing 7

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations. Defendant's Notice of Removal is DISMISSED. This matter is hereby REMANDED to Hamilton County General Sessions Court. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 10/8/15. (KFB, ) Modified on 10/8/2015 (KFB, ). This ORDER serviced via US Mail to Reginald Charles Harvey & Hamilton Co General Sessions Court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
REGINALD CHARLES HARVEY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-98
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Steger

ORDER
On September 15, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Steger recommended that
Defendant’s Notice of Removal be dismissed and that this matter be remanded to state
court.
Defendant has not filed objections to Magistrate Judge Steger’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger’s
well-reasoned conclusion that Defendant’s removal is both procedurally and
substantively deficient.

Magistrate Judge Steger specifically advised the parties that they had 14 days in which to object to the
Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any right to appeal. (Doc. 6 at 4 n.2);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Even
taking into account the three additional days for service provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in
which Defendant could timely file any objection has now expired.

1

Accordingly:


The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steger’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations (Doc. 6) pursuant to §
636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);



Defendant’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) is hereby DISMISSED;



This matter is hereby REMANDED to Hamilton County General Sessions
Court – Criminal Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).

SO ORDERED this 8th day of October, 2015.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2