UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00126 Stephanie Drewry, Plaintiff, V. Cade Drewry, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff filed this action in state court asserting a claim of in- tentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to state law. Doc. 2. Defendant removed the case to federal court, and plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Docs. 1, 5, 6. The magistrate judge is- sued an amended report and recommendation that the first amended motion to remand (Doc. 10) be stricken and the cor- rected motion to remand (Doc. 6) be granted. Doc. 12. No party filed written objections to the amended report and recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn,

(5th Cir. 1996). However, the court will still consider defendant’s objections to the first report and recom- mendation. Doc. 11 (objecting to Doc. 8). The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recom- mendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

(b)(1). The magistrate judge concluded that defendant “removed this case to the wrong district and [that] remand is appropriate.” Doc. 8 at 3; Doc. 12 at 5. Defendant argues that he “expects that there will be further proceedings in... Smith County” state court and that “central issues in the case revolve around” a third party’s residence in Smith County. Doc. 9 at 2-4. However, defendant’s arguments do not change the patently clear fact that the Eastern

-l-

District of Texas does not embrace the 98th Judicial District Court of Travis County.

(a). Therefore, remand is appropriate. See, e.g., Ratcliff »v. Ratcliff, No. 3:15-cv-01289,

, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2015); Bonton v. Mil- ler, No. 3:23-cv-00092,

, at *3-7 (M.D. La. July 19, 2023), report and recommendation adopted,

(M.D. La. Aug. 10, 2023). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court accepts its find- ings and recommendation. The court strikes the first amended motion to remand (Doc. 10), grants the corrected motion to re- mand (Doc. 6), and remands this matter to the 98th Judicial Dis- trict Court of Travis County, Texas. Defendant’s request for an award of fees is denied. So ordered by the court on July 3, 2025.

j/ (Linon BARKER United States District Judge

-2-