Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00527/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00527-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RENE WILKINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00527-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 

ACTION 

(Document 7)

Plaintiff Josh Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was originally filed in the Fresno County Superior 

Court on April 21, 2014. Defendant Tehrani removed the action to this Court on April 2, 2015.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed “objections” to the removal. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the 

parties and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed 

objections on June 30, 2015.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

Case 1:15-cv-00527-LJO-GSA Document 11 Filed 07/07/15 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

27

28

2

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Plaintiff mainly repeats arguments that were properly disposed of by the Magistrate Judge. 

As the Magistrate Judge explained, Defendant Tehrani timely removed the action to this Court, and 

he is not in default. Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner litigant and his complaint is therefore subject to the 

screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Defendant need not file a response unless and until 

the Court screens Plaintiff’s complaint and determines that it states a cognizable claim for relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 28, 2015, are adopted in full; 

and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Document 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s complaint will be 

screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00527-LJO-GSA Document 11 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2