ESTATE OF JEFFREY H. WARE v. HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 29

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE OVERRULED; AND THE HONORABLE M. FAITH ANGELL'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; AND THE MOTION TO REMAND IS DENIED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 12/19/2014. 12/19/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ESTATE OF JEFFREY H. WARE,
by BARBARA BOYER, Individually, on
behalf of Wrongful Death Beneficiaries,
and as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF
JEFFREY H. WARE,
CIVIL ACTION N0.14-14

Plaintiff,

v.
HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA, PERELMAN
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, TRUSTEES OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
ANN R. KENNEDY, D.S.C., GARY KAO,
M.D., MICHELLE ALONSO-BASANTA,
M.D., NATIONAL SPACE BIOMEDICAL
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, and CENTER
FOR ACUTE RADIATION RESEARCH,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2014, after considering the motion to remand

filed by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 9), and after also considering the notice of removal (and the
documents, including the complaint, attached thereto) filed by the defendants (Doc. No. 1), the

parties' submissions relating to the motion to remand (Doc. Nos. 13, 14, 15), the report and
recommendations filed by United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell (Doc. No. 20), the

objections to the report filed by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 23), and the defendants' responses to the
objections (Doc. Nos. 25, and 26); accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1.

The plaintiffs objections to the report and recommendations (Doc. No. 23) are

OVERRULED;' and

2.

The Honorable M. Faith Angeli's report and recommendations (Doc. No. 20) is

APPROVED and ADOPTED; and

3.

The motion to remand (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

c:C .
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

1

The court conducts a de novo review and determination of the portions of the report and recommendations by the
magistrate judge to which there are objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) ("A judge of the court shall make a de
nova determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made."); see also E.D. Pa. Loe. R. Civ. P. 72.l(IV)(b) (providing requirements for filing objections to
magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report).

2