Patterson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company et al
Filing
14
ORDER ADOPTING 13 Report and Recommendations and DENYING 4 Motion to Remand to State Court filed by Jenifer Patterson. Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. All future filings in this case shall be designated: CV 11-440 TUC-FRZ (JJM). Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 10/25/11. (SMBE)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
) No. CV 11-440-TUC-FRZ (JJM)
)
) ORDER
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
American Family Mutual Insurance Co., et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
Jenifer Patterson,
14
15
16
17
Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
18
This action, originally filed in the Arizona Superior Court in and for the County of
19
Pima and removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, was referred to Magistrate
20
Judge Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in
21
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of
22
the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Local
23
Rules of Civil Procedure.
24
Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand on July 27, 2011.
25
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ opposition and Plaintiff’s reply
26
thereto, Magistrate Judge Marshall issued her Report and Recommendation on September
27
21, 2011, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the record,
28
enter an order denying Plaintiff’s motion.
1
The Report and Recommendation advised “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days
2
from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific
3
written objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a)
4
and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . . . Failure to timely file objections to any
5
factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's
6
right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d
7
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
8
No objections were filed.
9
The Court finds, after consideration of the Report and Recommendation, and no
10
objections filed thereto, that the findings of the Magistrate Judge shall be accepted and
11
adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court. Based on the foregoing,
12
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation
13
(Doc. 13) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of
14
law by this Court;
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) is DENIED;
16
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge
17
Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in
18
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of
19
the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Local
20
Rules of Civil Procedure.
21
All future filings in this case shall be designated: CV 11-440 TUC-FRZ (JJM)
22
23
DATED this 25th day of October, 2011.
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?