Omlor v. Amelio
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-10057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Omlor v. Amelio, Judge Torres denied removal and dismissed the case because Amelio filed it more than seven years after service.
Alfonso Amelio’s attempt to remove the consolidated divorce proceeding to federal court was denied, and the federal matter was dismissed. Jeanne Omlor was the named plaintiff.
What happened
Jeanne Omlor v. Alfonso Amelio involved Alfonso Amelio’s attempt to move a 2017 consolidated divorce proceeding from New York state court to federal court. He filed the removal notice on December 24, 2024, even though he had received the initial pleading on February 17, 2017.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal because the removal was filed too late or, alternatively, because the federal court lacked authority to hear the matter. Amelio, who represented himself, objected and argued that federal jurisdiction existed, that removal itself created jurisdiction, and that the magistrate judge should have stepped aside.
Judge Analisa Torres adopted the recommendation and overruled Amelio’s objections. The court denied removal and dismissed the matter because the notice was untimely; it did not decide the separate question of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Omlor v. Amelio · No. 1:24-cv-10057
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 18, 2025
Background
Alfonso Amelio filed a notice of removal seeking to move a 2017 consolidated divorce proceeding from New York County Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. Judge Netburn ordered Amelio to explain why the case should not be returned to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, because removal was untimely.
Judge Netburn later recommended dismissing the matter because Amelio filed the removal notice too late or, alternatively, because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation stated that Amelio was served with the initial pleading on February 17, 2017, but did not file the notice of removal until December 24, 2024.
Amelio represented himself and objected to the recommendation. He argued that the state-court proceedings raised due-process and Americans with Disabilities Act concerns, that he had shown federal-question jurisdiction, that filing the removal notice itself established federal jurisdiction, and that Judge Netburn should have recused herself because of alleged investments in government bonds and other financial instruments. The district court also considered a later supplemental objection.
Legal Standard
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court generally reviews properly made specific objections from the beginning, but reviews portions without specific objections for clear error. An error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that the magistrate judge made a mistake.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that Amelio did not object to Judge Netburn’s conclusion that the removal was untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a removal notice generally must be filed within 30 days after the defendant receives the initial pleading or summons in the state-court action. Because Amelio filed his notice more than seven years after receiving the initial pleading, the court reviewed the timeliness determination for clear error and found none.
The court held that Amelio’s arguments about federal jurisdiction, due process, the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleged fraud, and Judge Netburn’s impartiality did not show that the removal notice was timely. Because the court denied removal on timeliness grounds, it did not address Judge Netburn’s separate recommendation concerning lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or Amelio’s objections to that recommendation.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres adopted the report and recommendation and overruled Amelio’s objections. The court denied removal and dismissed the matter. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 22 and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.