Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bourn v. River City Bank

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 23, 2014

ALVIN BOURN, Plaintiff,
v.
RIVER CITY BANK, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the above-entitled action from state court. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On July 8, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on defendant and which contained notice to defendant that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant has not 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 adopts the findings and recommendations with modifications.

Specifically, the court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation to remand the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court. In addition, while the court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny plaintiff's in forma pauperis application, it finds plaintiff need not pay the filing fee and costs associated with the commencement of this case in this court because the court remands the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting district court's authority to waive filing fees under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915); see also Grindling v. Fong, No. 14-00098, 2014 WL 2435868, at *5 (D. Haw. May 29, 2014) (recognizing court has discretion to "waive a filing fee if it believes a pro se litigant mistakenly commenced an action in this court"); Pate v. Guiltie, No. 08-1802, 2009 WL 3710714, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 8, 2014 are adopted in part as set forth above;

2. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application is denied; and

3. The above-entitled action is summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.