UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JAN 06 2025 DEL RIO DIVISION 9 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DI OF TEXAS RELVY BALDERAS, § BY Pp Plaintiff, § ZPUTY CLERK § Case No.; DR:24-CV-00099-EG GUADALUPE LUIS QUIROZDELA = § ROSA, TRANSPORTES § ESPECIALIZADOS ANTONIO § GARZA RUIZ DE CV, and PETRO § SERVICIOS DEL NORTE SADECV, = § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Matthew Watters, United States Magistrate Judge, filed on December 11, 2024. ECF 8. Also before the Court is the Plaintiff, Relvy Balderas’s Motion to Remand, filed on November 12, 2024. ECF 4. Defendants, Guadalupe Luis Quiroz De La Rosa, Transportes Especializados Antonio Garza Ruiz SA DE CV, and Petro Servicios Del Norte SA DE CV, filed a Notice of Consent for Remand (the “Notice”) on November 27, 2024. ECF 6. Furthermore, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. As no objection has been filed to date and based on the contents of the Notice, the Court considers the instant Report and Recommendation. The Court need not conduct a de novo review of the matter. See 28 ULS.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Rather, the Court reviews a report and recommendation to determine whether it is erroneous or clearly contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(5" Cir.), cert. denied, 492 918 (1989).

1]

The Court has examined the Report and Recommendation and concludes its findings and conclusions are neither erroneous nor clearly contrary to law. The Court’s review of the record confirmed more than 30 days had expired from the time each Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint to the date Defendants’ Notice of Removal was filed. The Court therefore ADOPTS the findings and conclusions contained within it. As such, the Plaintiffs Motion — to Remand, ECF 4, is GRANTED. Removal to district court pursuant to

(a) was defective under

(b), which required Defendant’s Notice of Removal to have been filed within 30 days after Defendants were served. Remand is permitted for such a defect under

(c). Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS this case remanded to the 293rd Judicial District Court of Maverick County, Texas. It is further ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

Lh IT IS SO ORDERED this_@_ day of January 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE