UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DEIDRA BONTON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS JAMES MILLER, ET AL. NO. 23-00092-BAJ-EWD REMAND ORDER Before the Court is the Motion to Remand (Doc. 5), filed by Deidra Bonton and Tyler Seaberry, III (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of their minor children C.S. and D.S. It is undisputed that this case was removed to the wrong federal district court, which is a procedural defect. (See Doc. 12 at p. 1; Doc. 16 at p. 3). Plaintiffs timely moved for remand based on that defect. Pursuant to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit precedent,! the Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17, the “R&R”), recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand be granted, and Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 10) be denied as moot because the removal statute is strictly construed, “and any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand.” Gasch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.,

(5th Cir. 2007). The deadline to object to the R&R has passed, without any objection from the Parties. Having carefully considered the Motion and related filings, the Court APPROVES the R&R and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion in this matter.

1 See, e.g., Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 819 F.8d 758, 765 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[A] motion to remand is a dispositive matter on which a magistrate judge should enter a recommendation to the district court subject to de novo review.”).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 5) be and is hereby GRANTED. This case is REMANDED immediately to the 12th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Avoyelles. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 10) be and is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this matter. . ioe Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this “day of August, 2023

R Ck f | JUDGE BRIAN A (IA) KSON UNITED STATES PISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA