From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. Mumma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 4, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-88 (M.D. Pa. May. 4, 2015)

Summary

remanding removed case to state court on plaintiff's motion

Summary of this case from Morgan v. Mumma

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-88

05-04-2015

LISA MORGAN, Surviving Co-Executrix and Co-Trustee under the Last Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, Plaintiff v. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, Defendant


()

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 10) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court grant plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to remand the above-captioned action to the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, wherein Judge Saporito finds that defendant's notice of removal (Doc. 1) of a state court judgment is both untimely and procedurally improper, (see Doc. 10 at 4-10), and, following an independent review of the record, the court in agreement with the magistrate judge's findings, and the court noting that defendant has objected (Doc. 11) to the report, and the court finding defendant's objection to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Saporito's report, it is hereby ORDERED that:

When a party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court performs a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. See Behar v. Pa. Dep't of Trans., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires written objections to "specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections." LOCAL RULE OF COURT 72.3; also Behar, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 389 (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. No. 07-417, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74519, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

1. The report (Doc. 10) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED in its entirety.



2. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to remand is GRANTED.



3. The above-captioned action is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

united States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Morgan v. Mumma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 4, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-88 (M.D. Pa. May. 4, 2015)

remanding removed case to state court on plaintiff's motion

Summary of this case from Morgan v. Mumma
Case details for

Morgan v. Mumma

Case Details

Full title:LISA MORGAN, Surviving Co-Executrix and Co-Trustee under the Last Will of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 4, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-88 (M.D. Pa. May. 4, 2015)

Citing Cases

Morgan v. Mumma

21 judgment against the defendant, which we have previously encountered in a prior removal action. See Morgan…