Schrammen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 02/08/2017. (TJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Terrance Schrammen,

Case No. 16-cv-2999 (WMW/SER)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

ConAgra Foods Inc.,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the December 21, 2016 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. (Dkt. 23.)
Defendant ConAgra Foods Inc. (“ConAgra”) removed this case to this Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction, and Plaintiff Terrance Schrammen filed two motions to remand.1
(Dkts. 6, 19.) The R&R recommends denying Schrammen’s motions to remand because
diversity jurisdiction exists. Schrammen filed objections to the R&R on January 3,
2017.2 ConAgra did not file a response to Schrammen’s objections.
A district court reviews de novo any portion of a magistrate judge’s disposition of
a case to which objections are properly filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
1

Schrammen’s second motion to remand appears to be his reply brief in response to
ConAgra’s opposition to his first motion to remand.
2

Schrammen filed a motion to strike on February 3, 2017. (Dkt. 27.) The Court
construes this motion as an additional objection to the R&R because it asserts the same
arguments as Schrammen’s January 3, 2017 objections to the R&R. Schrammen’s
motion to strike also attaches a subpoena as an exhibit. Although an attorney as an
officer of the court may issue and sign a subpoena, Schrammen is not permitted to do so
as a pro se party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). Accordingly, Schrammen’s purported
subpoena has no legal effect.

72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3); United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003).
Schrammen’s objections request that this Court review the proceedings before the
magistrate judge and allege that ConAgra “conceal[ed] . . . the TRUTH.”

But

Schrammen’s objections to the R&R focus on the merits of the underlying lawsuit and do
not address the basis for federal jurisdiction. It is clear from this Court’s de novo review
that ConAgra properly removed this matter. Complete diversity of citizenship exists
between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), (c).
ORDER
Based on the R&R, the foregoing analysis and all of the files, records and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Schrammen’s objections to the R&R, (Dkts. 24, 27), are OVERRULED;

2.

The December 21, 2016 R&R, (Dkt. 23), is ADOPTED;

3.

Schrammen’s motions to remand, (Dkts. 6, 19), are DENIED.

Dated: February 8, 2017

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

2