B9 ADLEY OWNER LLC
v.
HARGROVE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denying the defendant's motion to proceed without paying fees and remanding the case to state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant removed a tenant eviction action to federal court and moved to proceed without paying fees. The magistrate judge recommended denying the mot…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Removal Of Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Derek Hargrove filed a notice of removal, (Doc. 1), and moves to proceed without paying fees or costs, (Doc. 2). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Hargrove’s motion to proceed without paying fees and remand this case to state court. (Doc. 3.) After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Ifa party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). The fourteen-day deadline for objections to the recommendation has passed. No party objected. Nevertheless, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (Steele, J.). After review and for the reasons that the Magistrate Judge stated, the Court concludes that although Hargrove sufficiently demonstrates that he lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this tenant eviction action. (Doc. 3 at 3.) Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Hargrove’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
3. The Court directs the Clerk to REMAND this action to the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this order to the clerk of that court; to
TERMINATE any pending motions and deadlines; and to CLOSE this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 9, 2022.
patron Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)