IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION CORNERSTONE RESIDENTIAL ) MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a FREEDOM’S +) PATH LTD., ) Plaintiff, v. CV 125-119 WILLE G. SMITH, Defendant.

ORDER

After a careful de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 26.) The Magistrate Judge recommended Defendant’s' case be remanded to the Superior Court of Richmond County for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. (See doc. no. 18.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined Defendant did not establish federal question jurisdiction because the state court action was a state law dispossessory action raising no federal question, and the criteria for diversity jurisdiction were not met. (See id.) Although nothing in Defendant’s objections changes the conclusion that this action should be remanded, one objection warrants brief comment. (See doc. no. 26.)

' Although Defendant styles himself as “Plaintiff” in his objections, (see doc. no. 26), the Court ( refers to him as Defendant, as this terminology is consistent with Defendant’s improper removal attempt of the Richmond County state court action.

Defendant contends removal is proper under

(1), which he “expressly invoked” in his notice of removal. (Id. at 11-12.) Pursuant to § 1443(1), state civil actions are removable “faleainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.”

(1). Because Defendant did not raise this statute as a basis for removal in his notice, the Magistrate Judge did not err by not considering § 1443(1). (See generally doc. no. 1; doc. no. 26, p. 13.) Even if Defendant had raised § 1443(1), remand is still proper. To be removable under § 1443(1), the removing Defendant must satisfy the following two-pronged test: (1) “it must appear that the right allegedly denied the removal [defendant] arises under a federal law ‘providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality,’” and (2) “it must appear _.. that the removal [defendant] is ‘denied or cannot enforce’ the specified federal rights ‘in the courts of (the) State’” as “manifest in a formal expression of state law.” Johnson v. Mississippi,

(1975) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel,

(1966)). Defendant argues his rights under the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act “have been systemically frustrated,” which justifies removal under § 1443(1). (Doc. no. 26, p. 12.) He describes these laws as “securing equal housing opportunity and nondiscrimination for protected classes (such as persons with disabilities).” (Id.) This argument does not point to any “specific civil rights stated in terms of racial inequality,” and thus does not support removal. See Johnson,

. Moreover, nowhere does Defendant allege the denial of any such right is manifest in the formal expression of state law. Accordingly, this case is not removable because Defendant failed to satisfy either prong of the applicable test. See, e.g., FPAS Encore LLC v. McFall, No. 118CV04286,

,

at *2 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2018) (“Allegations of § 1443 jurisdiction on the vague and conclusory grounds presented by Defendant herein have been found insufficient to establish this court’s removal jurisdiction in dispossessory proceedings.”), adopted by

(N.D. Ga. Oct. 11, 2018). None of Defendant’s remaining objections alter the conclusion remand is warranted. (See doc. no. 18.) Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Richmond County, State of Georgia, case number 2025RCCV00358, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (doc. no. 2). The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to TERMINATE all pending motions and CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this 30” day of July, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia. A) // Py “hg f7 HONO CMU HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA