WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE v. BULLOCK, 2:13-cv-02933-SHL-cgc. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20141208b06
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND, AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES SHERYL H. LIPMAN, District Judge. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's "Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Remand, and Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases" (the "Report and Recommendation", which was filed on September 26, 2014. ( See ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND, AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES SHERYL H. LIPMAN, District Judge. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's "Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Remand, and Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases" (the "Report and Recommendation", which was filed on September 26, 2014. ( See ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND, AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
SHERYL H. LIPMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's "Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Remand, and Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases" (the "Report and Recommendation", which was filed on September 26, 2014. (See ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation on October 7, 2014. (See ECF No. 12.)
District courts must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, after conducting a de novo review, a district court is not required to articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party's objections. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 92 (6th Cir. 1986). This Court has conducted a de novo review by reviewing the record before the Magistrate Judge in light of Plaintiff's objections and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Amended Motion to Remand are GRANTED because there is not a federal question and Defendant has not met the amount-in-controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
