1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISABEL VELA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00878-JLT-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS 13 v. ACTION BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT 14 TOW GUYZ LLC, et al., (Doc. 5.) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Isabela Vela is proceeding pro se1 action against Defendants Tow Guyz, LLC, et al., 18 based on allegations Defendants unlawfully allowed entry into the office spaces she rented from 19 Defendants and Defendants unlawfully evicted her without a court order. (Doc 1. at 15-17) This 20 matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On September 9, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that this action be remanded to the Superior Court of 24 California, County of Tulare for improper removal (Doc. 5.) The Court served the findings and 25 recommendations on the plaintiff and notified her that any objections were due within 30 days. 26 (Id. at 5.) The Court advised her that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may 27

28 1 Plaintiff has a pending application to procced in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) enn eee EN OE EI IE

1 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838-39 2 | (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections” and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de 4 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the 5 | Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 9, 2025, are ADOPTED 8 IN FULL. (Doc. 20.) 9 2. This case be REMANDED back to the appropriate state court. 10 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2.) be DENIED as moot. 11 D IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: _October 20, 2025 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Accept Federal Jurisdiction After Denial of Removal. (Doc. 6.) Generally, Plaintiff argues that the Court should accept jurisdiction over her case because it is a § 1983 claim and 27 arises from violations of due process, equal protection and access to justice within the Tulare County Superior Court Proceedings. Ud. at 1-2.) Furthermore, Plaintiff states that this motion is meant to establish “independent federal 28 claims arising under the Constitution and § 1983.” (/d. at 1.)