ORDER

JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Notice of Removal (Dkt. # 6). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and therefore the Court may hold his pleadings to less stringent standards. Shuler v. Ingram & Assocs., 441 Fed. Appx. 712, 717 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2011) (pro se pleadings are "held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed..."). Therefore, the Court will construe Plaintiff's objection as a Motion to Remand. Nonetheless, the Court finds that Plaintiff's arguments are baseless and insufficient to require a response from Defendant and therefore will deny Plaintiff's request to remand the case to state court. See Goldsmith v. City of Atmore, 996 F.2d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 1993). ("A pro se litigant is still bound to follow the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.")

Plaintiff's one page complaint alleges that he was fired from HSBC based on his HIV status and that this lawsuit is based on the "results of the EEOC." His EEOC complaint specifically alleged discrimination based on disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Therefore, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, Plaintiff's objections to the case being in the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida when all of his witnesses are in Miami Beach are disingenuous. Plaintiff initiated his complaint in the 13th Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, FL, and cannot now complain that the venue is improper. It is therefore the Court's conclusion that the request to remand the case be denied.

It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

DONE and ORDERED.