Hittle et al v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Remand; finding as moot 9 Motion to Stay; adopting 19 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 11/13/15. (kn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROCHELE HITTLE, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-2295
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) dated October 20, 2015. (ECF No. 19.) In that filing, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (ECF No.
8.)
The R&R advised the parties that, “[i]f any party seeks review by the District Judge of
this [R&R], it may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the
[R&R], specifically designating this [R&R], and the part in question, as well as the basis for
objection.” (ECF No. 19, at PAGEID # 99 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)).) The R&R specifically advised the parties “that the failure to object to the [R&R] will
result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right
to appeal the judgment of the District Court.” (Id. (citing Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex Prod. Co.,
517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) and United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir.
2005)).)

1 

The Court has reviewed the R&R. Noting that no objections have been filed, and that
the time period for filing objections has expired, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND
AFFIRMS the R&R (ECF No. 19) and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (ECF No. 8).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2