Opinion
6:23-CV-529-JDK-KNM
11-17-2023
AUTHOR J. MANNING, JR., Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER BROS DISCOVER, et al. Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff Author Manning Jr., proceeding pro se, filed with this Court a document entitled “Motion for Removal Motion to Move the Case.” Doc. No. 1. This document appears to be Plaintiff's attempt to remove his state-court case to federal court. This case was referred to the undersigned on October 31, 2023. Doc. No. 2.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, only a defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court because plaintiffs have the benefit of choosing their preferred forum at the outset. See Jerry Fam. of Sark v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 161 Fed.Appx. 367 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[P]laintiffs cannot ‘remove' to federal court a case they chose to file in state court.”). Plaintiff's motion should not be construed as an original complaint because the filing fee has not been paid and Plaintiff has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion to remove (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and that the case is REMANDED to the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas immediately and without the delay provided for in Local Rule CV-83(b).
Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge's report, any party must serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.
Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
So Ordered.