Kadambi et al v. Express Scripts Inc et al

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING 39 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiffs Linda Hinant, Nancy Hunt, Ashok Kadambi, Robin Shear, Sharon Yost. The Motion to Remand to State Court is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 6/10/14. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ASHOK KADAMBI, M.D., et al.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-321-JD-RBC

ORDER
On November 5, 2013, this case was removed to this Court from the Superior Court of
Allen County, Indiana. [DE 3.] On December 12, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand
back to Indiana state court, arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. [DE 15.]
Defendants filed a response in opposition [DE 33] and Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of
remand [DE 34].
On April 10, 2014, the undersigned referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Cobsey for a
Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b), and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 72-1. [DE 38.] On April 21, 2014,
Magistrate Judge Cosbey issued his Report and Recommendation. [DE 39.] In his Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Cosbey recommends that the Motion to Remand be denied.
[DE 39 at 11.] As of this date, no party has filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (affording the parties fourteen days to file
objections).
The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), however, the Court must only make
a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrates Judge’s Report and
Recommendation to which specific written objection have been made. Johnson v. Zema
Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (setting forth
procedures for objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the
District Court’s standard of review for resolving objections). If no objection or only a
partial objection is made, the Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.
Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. In addition, failure to file objections with the district court also
“waives the right to appeal all issues addressed in the recommendation, both factual and
legal.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can only overturn a Magistrate
Judge’s ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.
1997).
Both section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) permit the parties to file objections to a Report and
Recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the same. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). More than 14 days have passed since the entry of Magistrate
Judge Cosbey’s Report and Recommendation, and no party has filed an objection.

2

Consequently, because the time period for objections as passed, the Court considers there to be
no objection to Magistrate Judge Cosbey’s Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error therein, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety [DE 39] and incorporates all of
Magistrate Judge Cosbey’s findings and recommendations into this order. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is DENIED. [DE 15.]
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 10, 2014
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

3