(PS)Brewer v. Brewer, No. 2:2005cv01094 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/6/05 RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Butte County Superior Court and the Clerk be directed to close this case. Motion referred to Judge Morrison C. England. (Sherman, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS)Brewer v. Brewer Doc. 11 Case 2:05-cv-01094-MCE-DAD Document 11 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELLY ANTHONY BREWER, 12 13 No. CIV.S-05-1094 DAD PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SUSAN ELLEN BREWER, 15 16 Defendant. __________________________/ 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of 18 removal. 19 remove to this court an action brought by him in Butte County 20 Superior Court, Brewer v. Brewer, Case No. FL019249. 21 U.S.C. § 1441(a) allows only “the defendant or the defendants” to 22 remove a case from state court to federal court. 23 Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 24 1260 (9th Cir. 1988)(“The right to remove a state court case to 25 federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”). 26 ///// That notice indicates that plaintiff is attempting to However, 28 See also Am. Int’l 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-01094-MCE-DAD Document 11 Filed 06/07/2005 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Page 2 of 2 3 This state civil action be summarily remanded to the Butte County Superior Court; and 4 2. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the The Clerk be directed to close this case. 6 United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the 7 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 8 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may 9 file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all Within ten (10) days after 10 parties. 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 14 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: June 6, 2005. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 16 17 18 19 DAD:th DDad1\orders.prose\brewer.remand 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The parties are See Martinez
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
