Smith et al v. Wal-Mart Louisiana L L C

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 13 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge filed by Larry Smith, Linda Faye Smith. Plaintiff's appeal is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's Ruling 12 is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/29/13. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

LINDA FAYE SMITH AND LARRY
SMITH

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2368

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

WAL-MART LOUISIANA, LLC

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On September 5, 2013, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes issued a Memorandum Ruling
[Doc. No. 12] denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 5].
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Objection to Memorandum Ruling” [Doc. No.
13], which the Court considers to be an appeal in accordance with FED . R. CIV . P. 72(a) and L.R.
74.1W. On September 25, 2013, Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. No. 15], and Plaintiffs
filed a Reply [Doc. No. 16] on October 1, 2013.
Motions to remand are non-dispositive pre-trial matters.1 Under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a), the Court reviews a magistrate judge’s rulings on non-dispositive
matters only to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Having conducted a thorough review of the entire record, the Court finds that, under the

1

The Court is aware that other courts have held that motions to remand are dispositive
motions and review a magistrate judge’s rulings on them de novo. However, the Fifth Circuit has
not addressed the standard of review to be applied to a district court’s review of a magistrate
judge’s ruling on a motion to remand. This Court has adhered to the view that a motion to
remand is a non-dispositive pre-trial matter and applies the clearly erroneous/contrary to law
standard of review. Jenkins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., CIV.A. 12-0880, 2012 WL 3579883 (W.D.
La. Aug. 17, 2012). However, the Court would reach the same conclusions in this case under a
de novo review.

facts and circumstances of this case, the Magistrate Judge’s order was not clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ appeal [Doc. No. 13] is DENIED, and the Magistrate
Judge’s Ruling [Doc. No. 12] is AFFIRMED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 29th day of October, 2013.

2