UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE

ROBIN HALL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. 7:19-CV-107-REW-EBA ) v. ) ) ORDER ANTHONY E. MILLER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

*** *** *** *** Defendant Old Republic Insurance Company removed this case in November 2019. DE #1 (Notice of Removal). Judge Atkins directed briefing as to whether complete diversity exists. See DE #7. Upon full briefing, Judge Atkins found the jurisdictional requirements satisfied and recommended that the Court retain the action. DE #10 (R&R). No party objected within the DE #10-alloted fourteen-day period. See id. at 3. While this Court reviews de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which a party objects, see

(b)(1), it is not required to “review . . . a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Where the parties do not object to the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, they waive any right to review. See, e.g., United States v. White,

(6th Cir. 2017) (“When a party . . . fails to lodge a specific objection to a particular aspect of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we consider that issue forfeited on appeal.”). Still, upon review of the full record and pertinent authority, the Court notes its independent agreement with Judge Atkins’s analysis and conclusion. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS DE #10 and retains the case federally, properly exercising diversity jurisdiction under the circumstances. The Court further DENIES without prejudice Old Republic’s pending schedule-related motion (filed in state court pre-removal) and refers the matter to Judge Atkins, per DE #3, for schedule development with party input. This the 28th day of January, 2020.

5 Kae _ Signed By: Zs Robert E. Wier “,-¥ y/ “ae United States District Judge