Reported / Citable
Background
Damaris McCalley removed the State of Texas’s case against her from the 362nd Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas, to the Eastern District of Texas. The federal case was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On June 23, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a report recommending remand to state court. The report was sent to McCalley by regular and certified mail, and the court received notice that she refused the certified mailing. No written objections to the report were filed.
The Court’s Holding
Because no timely objections were filed, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviewed the legal conclusions to determine whether they were contrary to law. After reviewing the report and the record, the court found no such error, abuse of discretion, or legal defect.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as its own findings. It held that McCalley had not carried her burden to establish federal jurisdiction and demonstrate that removal was proper, and it remanded the case to the 362nd Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas.
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and showing that removal was proper.
- When no party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the district court applies clear-error, abuse-of-discretion, and contrary-to-law review rather than de novo review.
- McCalley’s failure to establish federal jurisdiction required remand to the Texas state court.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that removal alone does not establish a federal court’s authority to hear a case. A defendant who invokes federal jurisdiction must affirmatively demonstrate a valid jurisdictional basis.
It also illustrates the consequences of failing to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation: absent timely objections, the district court conducts a more limited review before deciding whether to adopt the recommendation.