Filed: Jul. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 6) to which Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo has filed objections (Doc. # 7). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b). In her objection, Ms. Mayo argues the merits of her case, claiming that she is entitled to relief. In so doing, she misses the thrust of the Re
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 6) to which Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo has filed objections (Doc. # 7). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b). In her objection, Ms. Mayo argues the merits of her case, claiming that she is entitled to relief. In so doing, she misses the thrust of the Rec..
More
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 6) to which Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo has filed objections (Doc. # 7). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
In her objection, Ms. Mayo argues the merits of her case, claiming that she is entitled to relief. In so doing, she misses the thrust of the Recommendation: that her case is due to be remanded because 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only authorizes removal by state-court defendants. Because Ms. Mayo is designated as the plaintiff in the underlying state-court action, the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that this case be remanded.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo's objection (Doc. # 7) is OVERRULED;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 6) is ADOPTED; and
3. This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
