Warner v. Ledbetter, 3:18CV190TSL-RHW. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20180627b50
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER TOM S. LEE , District Judge . This cause is before the court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered on May 9, 2018, recommending that plaintiff's motion to remand be denied. Plaintiff has filed an objection. Having reviewed the report and recommendation and plaintiff's objection, the court concludes that the objection 1 is overruled and hereby adopts, as its own opinion, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Based on the foregoing,
Summary: ORDER TOM S. LEE , District Judge . This cause is before the court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered on May 9, 2018, recommending that plaintiff's motion to remand be denied. Plaintiff has filed an objection. Having reviewed the report and recommendation and plaintiff's objection, the court concludes that the objection 1 is overruled and hereby adopts, as its own opinion, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Based on the foregoing, i..
More
ORDER
TOM S. LEE, District Judge.
This cause is before the court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered on May 9, 2018, recommending that plaintiff's motion to remand be denied. Plaintiff has filed an objection. Having reviewed the report and recommendation and plaintiff's objection, the court concludes that the objection1 is overruled and hereby adopts, as its own opinion, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Robert H. Walker entered on May 9, 2018, be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this court. Accordingly, it is further ordered that plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion otherwise, it is clear to the court that by his complaint, plaintiff has not purported to limit his claims for relief to those brought pursuant to the Mississippi Constitution. Rather, he asserts both the state and federal constitutions as bases for relief. This fact is most clearly seen with reference to the "Count (3) Conspiracy" on pages six through eight of the complaint.
Source: Leagle
