KISER v. OLSEN, 2:14-cv-2313. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150303c36
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY L. FROST , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's February 6, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (ECF No. 17.) In that filing, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court. (ECF No. 8.) The R&R advised the parties that, if any party sought review by the District Judge, that party "may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, fil
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY L. FROST , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's February 6, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (ECF No. 17.) In that filing, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court. (ECF No. 8.) The R&R advised the parties that, if any party sought review by the District Judge, that party "may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, file..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge's February 6, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (ECF No. 17.) In that filing, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court. (ECF No. 8.)
The R&R advised the parties that, if any party sought review by the District Judge, that party "may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s)." (ECF No. 17, at PAGEID #177.) The R&R specifically advised the parties that their failure to object to the R&R "will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the [R&R] de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the [R&R]." (Id. (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981)).)
The Court has reviewed the R&R. Noting that no objections have been filed, that the time for filing such objections has expired, and that the Magistrate Judge's reasoning is correct, the Court AFFIRMS AND ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 17) and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court (ECF No. 8).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
