Kuehl v. Jefferson Pilot Financial et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Filing No. 32 ) are adopted in their entirety. The Motion for Remand (Filing No. 11 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TERRENCE KUEHL,
Plaintiff,

8:12CV260

vs.
ORDER
JEFFERSON PILOT FINANCIAL,
LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on the Order and Findings and Recommendation
of the magistrate judge (Filing No. 32). The magistrate judge recommended that the
plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Filing No. 11) be denied. Further, the magistrate judge
denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Filing No. 21) to the extent the plaintiff sought to
add Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company as a defendant and granted the
motion in all other respects. The plaintiff was given until November 21, 2012, to file an
amended complaint; and on November 14, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint (Filing No. 33).
A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate’s order that are
objected to by a party. Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 792 (8th Circuit 1996). “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)(2006). A district court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling where it has
been shown that the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Ferguson v. United
States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2006)).

The parties filed no objections to the findings and recommendation of the
magistrate judge.

The court has carefully reviewed the record and finds that the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted in their entirety.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Filing No. 32) are
adopted in their entirety;
2. The Motion for Remand (Filing No. 11) is denied.
Dated this 28th day of November, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

2