New Mexico Public Schools Insurance Authority v. Express Scripts Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Remand to State Court; and denying as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss Second and Third Counts of Complaint filed by Express Scripts Inc. 19 Motion to Dismiss filed by Express Scripts Inc. (bap) Modified on 8/28/2024 fixing typo(fs).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO PUBLIC
SCHOOLS INSURANCE AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CIV. 23-1034-MV/GBW

EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth’s August 5,
2024, Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”). Doc. 31. In that PFRD,
Judge Wormuth recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand (Doc. 15) by granting Plaintiff’s request to remand this matter to the First Judicial District
Court, State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe, and denying Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s
fees. Judge Wormuth notified the parties that they had 14 days from service of the PFRD to file
any objections to the PFRD and that failure to do so would waive appellate review. Id. at 15. The
parties have not filed any objections to the PFRD, thereby waiving their right to review of the
proposed disposition. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th
Cir. 1996). Furthermore, upon review of the PFRD, the Court concurs with Judge Wormuth’s
findings and recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc.
31) are ADOPTED;

1

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part, and the case is hereby REMANDED to the First Judicial District Court of
New Mexico; and
3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second and Third Counts of Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Doc. 6) and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second and Third
Counts of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 19)
are DENIED AS MOOT.

MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2