Singleton v. Freymann

Opinion

Southern District of Texas □ ENTERED August 01, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION HOWARD SINGLETON, ' § Plaintiff, V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00030 "RICK FREYMANN, et al, Defendants. : ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 17). The M&R recommends that the Court grant the motion to remand. Jd. at 1. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the ME&R is not clearly: erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 17). Remand is warranted for two reasons. First, removal was untimely. (D.E. 17, p. 10). Second, Defendant Koontz was not improperly joined, so the case lacks complete diversity. Jd. at 14.-As such, the Court ORDERS that this case be REMANDED to the state court, 148th District Court Nueces County Texas. (D.E. 1).

SO ORDERED. ( ) ’ 4 (

DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas August 2 , 2025

2/2