Grande Voiture D'Ohio La Societ des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux v. Montgomery County Voiture No. 34 LaSociete des 40 Hommes e 8 Chevaux ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON GRANDE VOITURE D’OHIO LA SOCIET DES 40 HOMMES ET 8 CHEVAUX, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-115 vs. MONTGOMERY COUNTY VOITURE District Judge Michael J. Newman NO. 34 LASOCIETE DES 40 HOMMES Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry E 8 CHEVAUX, et al., Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 4); (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 2); (3) REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; (4) TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. No. 3); AND (5) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________ Defendants previously removed this civil case from the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Doc. No. 1. The case is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry (Doc. No. 2), Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 3), Defendants’ objections (Doc. No. 4), and the parties’ respective responses (Doc. Nos. 5, 6). Judge Gentry recognized, in part, that Defendants’ previous attempt to remove nearly identical proceedings from state court failed because “a state-court motion for contempt sanctions does not ‘raise[] a federal question’ sufficient to invoke this Court’s removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1446.” Doc No. 2 at PageID 21 (quoting Grande Voiture d’Ohio la Société des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux v. Montgomery Cnty. Voiture No. 34 la Société des 40 Hommes et 8 Chevaux, No. 3:23-CV-0155, 2023 WL 6554068 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2023)). The Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiff’s objections, and all filings in this matter. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se filings in his favor and accepting his factual allegations as true, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s objections. Judge Gentry’s Report and Recommendation is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Montgomery Ohio, Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is TERMINATED as moot. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and, consequently, DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal this Order in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. July 16, 2024 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge