VAUGHN v. 21ST CENTURY SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 18

ORDER - The magistrate judge's order on the motion to remand (doc. 13 ) is construed as a report and recommendation. The report and recommendation (doc. 13 ) is adopted with regard to the recommendation on the motion to remand and is moot with regard to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (docs. 8 & 11 ) is DENIED. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (doc. 6 ) is MOOT. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint (doc. 16 ) is GRANTED. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 11/26/2012. (djb)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
GERALD VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:12cv410/MCR/CJK

21st CENTURY SECURITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, f/k/a NEW HAMPSHIRE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
ORDER
On October 16, 2012, the magistrate judge filed an order denying a motion to
remand and a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), on
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court has construed the entire order as a report and
recommendation, subject to de novo review, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).1 No timely
objections have been filed. However, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint (doc.
16). The court should freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2). The court concludes that the motion to amend the complaint should be
granted. Therefore, the report and recommendation to deny the motion to remand will be
adopted, and the recommendation addressing the motion to dismiss the original complaint
is moot.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.

The magistrate judge's order on the motion to remand (doc. 13) is construed

as a report and recommendation.

1

Because of the dispositive nature of a m otion to rem and on the issue of federal jurisdiction, the
undersigned has concluded that m agistrate judges should address such m otions on a report and
recom m endation. See W illiams v. Beemiller, Inc., 527 F.3d 259, 265-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing consistent
authority from the Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits). Accordingly, the m agistrate judge’s order on the m otion
to rem and will be construed as a report and recom m endation, and the court will apply de novo review pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) to any part of the m agistrate judge’s disposition of the m otion to rem and or the m otion
to dism iss that is properly objected to.

Page 2 of 2

2.

The report and recommendation (doc. 13) is adopted with regard to the

recommendation on the motion to remand and is moot with regard to the motion to dismiss.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (docs. 8 & 11) is DENIED.

4.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 6) is MOOT.

5.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (doc. 16) is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of November, 2012.

M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:12cv410/MCR/CJK