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)

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