Moses v. Bill Oldham & Officers et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and OVERRULING 8 OBJECTIONS. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 03/02/2015.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

PAMELA MOSES,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF BILL
OLDHAM & OFFICERS, SHELBY
COUNTY HOMELAND SECURITY, and
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES
LLS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-2715

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On September 2, 2014, Plaintiff Pamela Moses (“Plaintiff”)
filed

her

Complaint

against

Defendants

Shelby

County

Sheriff

Bill Oldham & Officers, Shelby County Homeland Security, and
AlliedBarton

Security

Services,

LLC,

(collectively,

“Defendants”) in Shelby County, Tennessee, Chancery Court.
ID CH-14-1316.

Case

On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff removed the

case to this Court.

(ECF No. 1.)

Before the Court are the Magistrate Judge’s September 23,
2014 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that
the Court remand this case sua sponte, and Plaintiff’s October
9,

2014

Objections

to

Objections, ECF No. 8.)

the

Report.

(Report,

ECF

No.

7;

For the following reasons, the Report

is ADOPTED and the case is REMANDED to Shelby County, Tennessee,
Chancery Court.
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on
the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district
court duties to magistrate judges.
237

F.3d

States,

598,
490

602

U.S.

(6th
858,

Cir.

See United States v. Curtis,

2001)

869-70

(citing

(1989));

Gomez

see

v.

also

Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

United

Baker

v.

“A district

judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
P.

72(b);

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(C).

After

Fed. R. Civ.
reviewing

the

evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
proposed findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The district court is not required to

review — under a de novo or any other standard — those aspects
of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

The district court

should adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to
which no specific objection is filed.

Id. at 151.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff’s removal of this
case

was

improper

defendants.

because

(Report at 2.)

(Objection at 3.)

that

right

is

reserved

only

for

Plaintiff objects to that finding.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
2

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place where
such action is pending.”
Removal

is

available

only

28 U.S.C. § 1441 (emphasis added).
to

defendants,

and

“[t]he

‘defendant’ in removal statutes is narrowly construed.”

term
In re

Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 849 (6th Cir.
2012); First Nat. Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 462-63
(6th

Cir.

action.
Defendants.

2002).
She

Pamela

seeks

Moses

equitable

filed
and

the

complaint

monetary

relief

in

this

against

Pamela Moses is the plaintiff in this case.

Her

removal to this Court was improper.
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ADOPTED and the case is REMANDED to Shelby County, Tennessee,
Chancery Court.

So ordered this 2nd day of March, 2015.

/s Samuel H. Mays, Jr.__ ____
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3