Steel v. Viscofan USA, Inc., 2:17cv349-MHT. (2017)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20171204763
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2017
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this case in state court asserting claims for worker's compensation and products liability stemming from a serious workplace injury. After the state court severed the worker's compensation claim and the products-liability claims into two separate cases, defendants removed the products-liability case to federal court. The case is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that plainti
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this case in state court asserting claims for worker's compensation and products liability stemming from a serious workplace injury. After the state court severed the worker's compensation claim and the products-liability claims into two separate cases, defendants removed the products-liability case to federal court. The case is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that plaintif..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this case in state court asserting claims for worker's compensation and products liability stemming from a serious workplace injury. After the state court severed the worker's compensation claim and the products-liability claims into two separate cases, defendants removed the products-liability case to federal court. The case is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff's motion to remand be denied. There are no objections to the recommendation. Because plaintiff has not objected, and after an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's recommendation should be adopted.
* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The recommendation of the magistrate judge (doc. no. 19) is adopted.
(2) Plaintiff's motion to remand (doc. no. 8) is denied.
This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Source: Leagle
