Not for Publication

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARK A. HARTZBAND,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-185 v.

ARTHUR PAUL GROOM., et al.,

ORDER Defendants.

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

This matter comes before the Court by way of the March 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation, D.E. 7, (the “R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre. The R&R addressed Judge Wettre’s sua sponte Order requiring pro se Defendant Arthur Paul Groom to show cause why this action should not be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

(c). R&R at 1. Judge Wettre found that Defendant, the removing party, had not met his burden of demonstrating that the case was properly before the Court and recommended that the action be remanded.

; and it APPEARING that no objections to the R&R have been received and the time for filing any objections has expired under Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2); and it APPEARING that “where no objections are made in regard to a report or parts thereof, the district court will adopt the report and accept the recommendation if it is ‘satisf[ied] . . . that there is no clear error on the face of the record.’” Sportscare of Am., P.C. v. Multiplan, Inc., No. 10-4414,

, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s Notes); and it APPEARING that this Court independently reviewed the record and the R&R, and finds no clear error. THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, IT IS on this 4th day of April 2022, ORDERED that the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety as the Opinion of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Bergen County; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter.

A OO. John ‘Michael Saat ’ 3 DJ.