Waterford Manor Provence Real Estate v. Sutton, No. 1:2018cv03065 - Document 5 (N.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 3 Final Report and Recommendation. This action is hereby REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County. There being no further issues before the Court, the Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 7/11/2018. (sap)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Waterford Manor Provence Real Estate v. Sutton Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION WATERFORD MANOR PROVENCE REAL ESTATE, Plaintiff, v. CRYSTAL S. SUTTON, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-30 65-AT-J KL ORD ER This m atter is before the Court on the Magistrate J udge’s Final Report and Recom mendation that this dispossessory action be rem anded to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) [Doc. 3]. 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). Defendant has been granted in form a pauperis status by the Magistrate J udge. Rather than wait for potential objections to be filed, the Court reviews the Magistrate J udge’s holding de novo in its entirety. Dockets.Justia.com In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court has conducted a careful, de novo review of the Magistrate J udge’s recom mendation rem anding this action. The Court concludes that the Magistrate J udge’s Order is correct in all m aterial respects. The Court cannot act beyond its statutory grant of subject m atter jurisdiction, and m ust “strictly construe rem oval statutes in favor of state court jurisdiction.” Kuhn v. Brunsw ick Corp., 871 F. Supp. 1444, 1446 (N.D. Ga. 1994); see also Burns v. W indsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 10 92 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the Court hereby 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 REMAN D S this case to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb 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 11th day of J uly, 20 18. ___________________________ AMY TOTENBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 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 DeKalb County. The case is sim ply being returned to the Magistrate Court for further proceedings. Any future m otions should be filed with the Magistrate 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.
