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-