(PS) Amaya v. McGill

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAULA AMAYA, No. 2:19-cv-01805-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. BERNIS MCGILL, Defendant. Defendant Bernis McGill,1 proceeding pro se, removed this case from the Superior Court of California, County of Merced (Case No. F19664), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. (ECF No. 1.) Also pending before this Court are Defendant’s two motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 4.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 7, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 1 Paula Amaya appears to be the respondent in the state court case, initiated by the Chief Child Support Attorney on behalf of petitioner Bernis McGill, aka “Shaheer Farrakhan Muhammad,” aka “Noble Bernis McGill Earl El Bey,” to modify an existing child support order and address the alleged non-payment of support (see ECF No. 1 at 17–19, 25). However, McGill filed the Notice of Removal in this action (see id. at 80) and the caption of the original Notice of Removal identifies Amaya as the “plaintiff” and McGill as the “defendant” (ECF No. 1). The Court notes the caption for the Amended Notice of Removal identifies McGill as the “plaintiff” and Amaya as the “defendant.” (ECF No. 3.) recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 5.) Neither party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 7, 2019 (ECF No. 5), are adopted in full; 2. The action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Merced, due to this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 3. Defendant’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court (ECF Nos. 2, 4) are DENIED as moot; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Dated: October 28, 2019