Summary
holding removal is not proper because "Plaintiffs have made clear their intention to rely only on state law in pursuing this action" even though certain counts of the complaint "contain[] references to legal standard often implicated under Section 1983"
Summary of this case from Corbitt v. HornerOpinion
Civil Action No. 09-814.
November 3, 2009
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On October 19, 2009, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Cathy Bissoon for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
Also on October 19, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a Report (Doc. 14) recommending that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 8 10) be denied, and that this case be remanded to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Service of the Report and Recommendation was made on the parties, and no objections have been filed. After a review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, on this 3rd day of November, 2009, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss ( Docs. 8 10) are DENIED, and this case is REMANDED FORTHWITH to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
To be clear, removal of this case was neither sought, nor considered by the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Compare Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) at ¶ 13 (claiming removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a)(3)) with New Jersey v. Thomas, 2009 WL 2903654, *1 (3d Cir. Sept. 11, 2009) ("[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal unless the case was removed pursuant to § 1443") (citing and quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)).
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bissoon dated October 19, 2009 is hereby adopted as the Opinion of the District Court, and the Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.