Fiedler v. Brindley, M.D., et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 13 Report and Recommendations. The Court finds that removal of this case by Plaintiff was improper, and this case is REMANDED to the 366th Judicial District, Collin County, Texas, for further proceedings. All relief not previously granted is hereby DENIED, and the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this civil action. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/23/2017. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

MURIEL FIEDLER,
Plaintiff,
V.
MACE BRINDLEY, M.D., and THE
EAR NOSE & THROAT CENTERS
OF TEXAS, PLLC,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:17CV75
Judge Mazzant/Judge Johnson

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §636. On February 22, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations (see Dkt. 13) that the case should be
REMANDED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to the 366th Judicial District, Collin County,
Texas, where it was originally filed and assigned Case Number 366-02430-2014.
Pro se Plaintiff Muriel Fiedler (“Plaintiff”) filed objections to the report on March 3, 2017
(see Dkt. 14). The Court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff and is of
the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections
are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. The Court hereby adopts the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Plaintiff’s objections are baseless and without statutory or other legal support. The
Magistrate Judge correctly found that there is no subject matter jurisdiction here. Plaintiff
submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the state court when she filed Plaintiff’s Original Petition
(and amendments thereto). See Dkt. #6. Simply put, Plaintiff is not entitled to the federal removal
1

statute under 28 U.S.C. §1441 because she is not a “defendant” as set forth in the statute. 28 U.S.C.
§1441(a).
Accordingly, the Court finds that removal of this case by Plaintiff was improper, and this
.

case is REMANDED to the 366th Judicial District, Collin County, Texas, for further proceedings.
All relief not previously granted is hereby DENIED, and the Clerk is directed to CLOSE
this civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 23rd day of March, 2017.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2