Teddy and Helen Property Management, LLC v. Skeete, No. 1:2018cv02926 - Document 6 (N.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING the Defendant's Objections and ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 2 Report and Recommendations. This action is hereby REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Henry County. There being no further issues before the Court, the Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 7/10/2018. (sap)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Teddy and Helen Property Management, LLC v. Skeete Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION TEDDY AND HELEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS SKEETE, J R., Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-2926-AT-LTW ORD ER This m atter is before the Court on the Magistrate J udge’s Final Report and Recom m endation (“R&R”) [Doc. 2] that Defendant’s application to proceed without prepaym ent of costs be denied, or alternatively that this dispossessory action be rem anded to the Magistrate Court of Henry County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate J udge’s R&R for clear error if no objections are filed to the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district court m ust determ ine de novo any part of the Magistrate J udge’s disposition that is the subject of a proper objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). As Defendant has filed docum ents construed as raising objections to the Magistrate J udge’s R&R, the Court reviews the R&R on a de novo basis. Dockets.Justia.com The Court exercises its discretion to grant the Defendant’s Application for the purpose of reviewing whether jurisdiction exists. Having reviewed the Report and Recom m endation and finding it correct in all m aterial respects, the Court hereby OVERRU LES Defendant’s Objections and AD OPTS the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom m endation as the opinion of this Court. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recomm endation, the Court lacks federal subject m atter jurisdiction over this m atter and the Court REMAN D S this case to the Magistrate Court of Henry County.1 There being no further issues before the Court, the Clerk is D IRECTED to close the case. IT IS SO ORD ERED this 10 th day of J uly, 20 18. _____________________________ Am y To te n be rg U n ite d State s D is trict Ju d ge 1 As this case involves a pro se Defendant, the Court provides further guidance. An order rem anding the case m eans that the case will continue to be heard, but in the court where it was originally filed – here, the Magistrate Court of Henry County. The case is sim ply being returned to the Magistrate Court for further proceedings. Any future m otions should be filed with that court. 2
]]>
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.
