(PS) Amaya v. McGill ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAULA AMAYA, No. 2:19-cv-01805-TLN-KJN 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 BERNIS MCGILL, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Defendant Bernis McGill,1 proceeding pro se, removed this case from the Superior Court 17 of California, County of Merced (Case No. F19664), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the 18 grounds of diversity of citizenship. (ECF No. 1.) Also pending before this Court are Defendant’s 19 two motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 4.) The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 7, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 23 1 Paula Amaya appears to be the respondent in the state court case, initiated by the Chief 24 Child Support Attorney on behalf of petitioner Bernis McGill, aka “Shaheer Farrakhan Muhammad,” aka “Noble Bernis McGill Earl El Bey,” to modify an existing child support order 25 and address the alleged non-payment of support (see ECF No. 1 at 17–19, 25). However, McGill filed the Notice of Removal in this action (see id. at 80) and the caption of the original Notice of 26 Removal identifies Amaya as the “plaintiff” and McGill as the “defendant” (ECF No. 1). The 27 Court notes the caption for the Amended Notice of Removal identifies McGill as the “plaintiff” and Amaya as the “defendant.” (ECF No. 3.) 28 1 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 5.) Neither party has 2 filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 3 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 4 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 5 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 6 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal 7 standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 8 by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 7, 2019 (ECF No. 5), are adopted 11 in full; 12 2. The action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Merced, due 13 to this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 14 3. Defendant’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court (ECF Nos. 2, 4) are 15 DENIED as moot; and 16 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 28, 2019 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28