Skyline Holding Group v. Smith et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 8 Motion to Remand. Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner no longer assigned to case - CASE CLOSED. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 5/18/12 (alt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION SKYLINE HOLDING GROUP, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION v. Case No. 2:12-cv-258 TOM SMITH and VICTOR VILCHEZ, District Judge David Nuffer Defendants. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner issued on April 20, 2012, recommending that this Court: (1) grant Plaintiff Skyline Holding Group’s Motion to Remand; and (2) deny Skyline’s request for attorney fees, costs, and sanctions. The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days after receiving it. On May 4, 2012, the Court received objections from Defendants Tom Smith and Victor Vilchez. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo all materials, including Defendants’ pro se objections, the record that was before the magistrate judge, and the reasoning set forth in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusion of the magistrate judge, and will adopt the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 24) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Skyline Holding Group’s Motion to Remand (docket no. 8) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the Third Judicial District Court, State of Utah, Salt Lake County for further proceedings. Signed May 18, 2012. BY THE COURT ________________________________________ District Judge David Nuffer 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?