Patchin v. Gulfport Energy Corp. et al

Filing 30

ORDER adopting 23 the Report and Recommendation; denying 5 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 7/3/17. (jk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Bert Patchin, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:17-cv-46 Gulfport Energy Corp., et a/.. Judge Michael H. Watson Defendants. Magistrate Judge Deavers ORDER On June 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Deavers issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court deny PiaintifTs motion to remand this action to state court. R&R, EOF No. 23. Magistrate Judge Deavers concluded that there was no evidence that Defendant Patriot Drilling Fluids ("Patriot"), the only Defendant who did not expressly consent to removal, was served by certified mail in accordance with Ohio law before this case was removed. R&R 5, EOF No. 23. As an unserved defendant, she concluded. Patriot's consent was not required for removal; therefore. Patriot's lack of consent did not render the removal defective. Id. at 4-5. The R&R notified the parties of their right to object with fourteen days and specifically advised the parties that the failure to timely object would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the Undersigned and a right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Id. at 5. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and none were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DENIES Plaintiffs motion to remand, EOF No. 5. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:17-cv-46 Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?