Williams v. Fanuc America Corporation et al

Filing 57

ORDER: Court ADOPTS 56 Report and Recommendation in its entirety and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's recommendations into this Order. The Court now DISMISSES the 19 Amended Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 3/17/2017. (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
LARRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FANUC AMERICA CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 3:16-CV-173-TLS

ORDER
On February 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge John Martin issued a Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 56] that this Court dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 19]. On October
4, 2016, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Amended
Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [ECF No. 45.] In response, the
Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Jurisdictional Disclosure Statement [ECF No. 51] and conceded
that complete diversity jurisdiction does not exist. However, the Plaintiff argued that the
Defendant is a necessary party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The Magistrate
Judge recommended that pursuant to Rule 19(b), equity and good conscience require dismissal
and thus, the Plaintiff failed to show cause concerning jurisdiction.
The Court’s review of the 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). Furthermore, Rule 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to
which specific written objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739
(7th Cir. 1999). If no objection or only a partial objection is made, the Court reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error. Id. In addition, failure to file objections with the district court
“waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. Under the clear error standard,
the Court can only overturn the 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., 126
F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
Here, the Magistrate Judge set forth the facts under the appropriate standard of review
and provided an explanation for determinations made therein. No party has objected to those
findings. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 56] and finding no clear
error, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation into this Order. Accordingly, the Court now dismisses the Amended Complaint
[ECF No. 19] without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED on March 17, 2017.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2