ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

(Doc. Nos. 6, 9)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Marcos Casey Guillen, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 3, 2019, plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint in the Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) On July 10, 2019, defendant D. Carrillo removed the case to this federal court on the grounds that "the Complaint and its attachments allege violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." (Id. at 2.) On July 31, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to Kern County Superior Court, asserting that his complaint is based on state law and that a state court can adequately review any related federal claims. (Doc. No. 6.) Defendant filed his opposition to plaintiff's motion on August 6, 2019. (Doc. No. 8.)

On August 8, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion to remand be denied because the federal courts have original jurisdiction over this action based on the federal questions presented on the face of plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained noticed that any objections thereto were to be filed fourteen days after service. (Id. at 2.) On August 21, 2019, plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 10.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates his preference for litigating this action in state court. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff argues that his civil rights action should not be removed because it is not brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that his complaint mentions constitutional law violation insofar as it is required by California's Bane Civil Rights Act. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also confusingly requests that if this action is not remanded to the Kern County Superior Court, it should be heard in both federal and state court. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.