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

(ECF No. 14)

ANTHONY W. ISHII, District Judge.

Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action in Kings County Superior Court on August 16, 2017. On January 16, 2018, Defendants Cryer, Enenmoh, Kokor, and Lewis (collectively "Defendants") removed the action and requested that the Court screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and that Defendants be allowed thirty days from the screening of the complaint to file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 2.) On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed an objection to the removal. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.)

The Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff's objection to the removal as a motion to remand. (ECF No. 7.) Defendants filed a response on January 31, 2018, (ECF No. 9), and Plaintiff filed a reply on February 12, 2018, (ECF No. 13).

On February 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's motion to remand be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on March 12, 2018.1 (ECF No. 15.)

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that although his complaint presents overlapping issues of federal and state law, he disagrees with the rules "that force overlapping issues into federal court," because they make it more difficult for an average person to be treated justly, and should therefore not be enforceable. With respect to his objection to the screening of the complaint, Plaintiff argues that doctors should be considered employees of the patients they treat, even if they are paid by a government entity or state agency. Plaintiff has further attached a complete copy of the complaint.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections and finds them to be meritless. It is evident from Plaintiff's complaint, as well as his concession that the case presents "overlapping" issues of federal and state law, that he is pursuing federal causes of action over which this Court maintains federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff's argument that having his claims heard in federal court will make it more difficult for his claims to be heard fairly is unpersuasive and unsupported. Similarly, his argument that doctors should not be considered employees of a government entity because they should be "working for the patient," is equally unsupported and unpersuasive.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Kokor, Enenmoh, Lewis, and Cryer remove to this Court the state court action described below:

1. On August 16, 2017, a complaint alleging violations of federal civil rights, as specified below, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kings, entitled Nathaniel Marcus Gann v. Kokor, et al., Case No. 17C-0237.

2. A copy of the Summons and Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.

3. Service was accepted on behalf of Defendants Kokor, Enenmoh, and Cryer on December 19, 2017, and service was accepted on behalf of Defendant Lewis on January 3, 2018

4. This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendants under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) in that the Complaint includes claims that are based on the United States Constitution.

5. Furthermore, Defendants respectfully request that this Court screen the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a), and that Defendants be allowed thirty days from the screening of the Complaint to file a responsive pleading.

EXHIBIT A