Wilkins v. Wachovia Corporation et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Remand. Signed by U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III on 3/15/2011. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DMSION
No.5:10-CV-249

CHARLES P. WILK1NS, Plaintiff,
~

)
) ) )

)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

WACHOVIA CORPORATION, WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL CORPORATION, WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, f/d/b/a WACHOVIA CORPORATION, Defendants.

On February 28,2011, Magistrate Judge Daniel issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 31]. In that M&R, Judge Daniel recommended (among other things) that the court deny plaintiffs motion to remand and altemative motion for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint [D.E.9]. On March 14, 2011, plaintiff filed objections to the M&R "only to the extent that the conclusions of law hold that specifically identified claims should be dismissed." Pl.'s Obj. l. Plaintiff did not object to the M&R's conclusion that diversity jurisdiction exists or that plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the complaint to add four individual defendants in order to destroy complete diversity. See M&R 5-12. On March 14, 2011, defendant Wells Fargo & Company filed objections to the M&R directed at a portion ofthe M&R concerning defendant's motion to dismiss [D.E. 33]. With respect to the M&R's conclusion concerning diversity jurisdiction and the alternative motion for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See,~, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416

F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005) (describing standard of review). Diversity jurisdiction exists. Thus, the court DENIES the motion to remand [D.E. 9]. The court will address defendant's motion to dismiss [D.E. 14] in due course. SO ORDERED. This

IS" day of March 2011.

2