Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02317/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02317-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Campbell
Defendant
Stephanie Campbell
Defendant
Stephen Harmon
Defendant
MTGLQ Investors, L.P.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MTGLQ Investors, L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICHARD CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE 

CAMPBELL, STEPHEN HARMON, and 

DOES 1-5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2317 KJM AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). 

 On March 3, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 12. Neither party has 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

the proper analysis. 

Case 2:15-cv-02317-KJM-AC Document 16 Filed 06/06/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2016 (ECF No. 12) are adopted in 

full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4) is granted; 

 3. This action is remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of federal 

jurisdiction; 

 4. The IFP application (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot; and 

 5. Plaintiff’s pending motion to remand the case to state court (ECF No. 14) also is 

denied as moot. 

DATED: June 3, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02317-KJM-AC Document 16 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2