Wells Fargo Home Mortgage v. Bullock

Filing 14

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 11 ; granting 4 , 5 Motion to Remand; denying 7 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 12/05/2014. (Lipman, Sheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BULLOCK d/b/a JOHN MEBRATU
ABYSSINIA BEY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:13-cv-02933-SHL-cgc

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND, AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Remand, and Defendant’s Motion to
Consolidate Cases” (the “Report and Recommendation”), which was filed on September 26,
2014. (See ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation
on October 7, 2014. (See ECF No. 12.)
District courts must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge's report
and recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, after
conducting a de novo review, a district court is not required to articulate all of the reasons it
rejects a party's objections. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 92 (6th Cir. 1986). This Court has
conducted a de novo review by reviewing the record before the Magistrate Judge in light of
Plaintiff's objections and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Amended Motion to Remand are GRANTED because there is
not a federal question and Defendant has not met the amount-in-controversy requirement under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate Cases is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of December, 2014.
/s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2