Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IDOWU O. OGHOGHO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0227 LKK EFB PS

vs.

TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 30,

2008, plaintiff filed a document styled as a “Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal

Court,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Section 1441(a) provides that “any civil action brought in

a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be

removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district

and division embracing the place where such action is pending” (emphasis added). This matter

was improvidently removed by plaintiff, and as such the court recommends that it be remanded

to the state court in which it was initiated. 

////

Case 2:08-cv-00227-LKK -EFB Document 4 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This case be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the

County of Sacramento; and,

2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10) days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 31, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00227-LKK -EFB Document 4 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2