Rehburg v. Bob Hubbard Horse Transportation, Inc., 1:18-cv-00531-MV-JHR. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
Number: infdco20190506c02
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 03, 2019
Latest Update: May 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MARTHA VAZQUEZ , District Judge . On March 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition [Doc. 42], in which he recommended "that the Court hold that remand is not required and that additional discovery on this jurisdictional issue is unnecessary." [ Id. , p. 1]. The proposed findings notified the parties of their ability to file objections and that failu
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION MARTHA VAZQUEZ , District Judge . On March 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition [Doc. 42], in which he recommended "that the Court hold that remand is not required and that additional discovery on this jurisdictional issue is unnecessary." [ Id. , p. 1]. The proposed findings notified the parties of their ability to file objections and that failur..
More
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
MARTHA VAZQUEZ, District Judge.
On March 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition [Doc. 42], in which he recommended "that the Court hold that remand is not required and that additional discovery on this jurisdictional issue is unnecessary." [Id., p. 1]. The proposed findings notified the parties of their ability to file objections and that failure to do so waives appellate review. As of today, no objections have been filed and there is nothing in the record indicating that the proposed findings were not delivered.
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ritter's PFRD [Doc. 42]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Remand [Doc. 11], including Plaintiff's demand for alternative relief in the form of additional discovery of jurisdictional facts [Doc. 11, p. 9, ¶ 32], is denied.
Source: Leagle
