From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. Remley

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Apr 30, 2004
1:03CV421 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2004)

Opinion

1:03CV421

April 30, 2004


ORDER


On September 22, 2003 and December 3, 2003, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge were filed and notices were served on both parties and copies were given to the court.

Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, objections to the Recommendations were filed.

The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's reports to which objections were made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's reports. The court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's motion to amend the Removal Notice (docket 1-1) be DENIED, and that the case be REMANDED to the Forsyth County Superior Court.


Summaries of

Gray v. Remley

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Apr 30, 2004
1:03CV421 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2004)
Case details for

Gray v. Remley

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN S. GRAY, Chapter 11 Trustee of TEXFI INDUSTRIES, INC. Plaintiff…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Apr 30, 2004

Citations

1:03CV421 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2004)

Citing Cases

Susino v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

Amendments may not correct fundamental defects nor assert new grounds for removal. See SmithKline, 769 F.3d…

Schmitigal v. Twohig

Because it "involve[d] no arduous inquiry," the court was required to resolve the issue of its subject matter…