Martin v. Walgreens Company

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Martin v. Walgreens Company

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE

LOWELL MARTIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 7:19-CV-122-REW-EBA ) v. ) ) ORDER WALGREENS CO., et al., )

Defendants. *** *** *** *** Defendant Walgreens removed this case in December 2019. DE 1 (Notice of Removal). Consistent with DE 4, Judge Atkins ordered Defendants to clarify whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. DE 5. Defendants did so, arguing that the nature of Plaintiff’s claims and the type of damages sought suggested that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. See DE 6. Plaintiff then moved to remand, contending that the unknown pharmacist joined as a defendant in the action is a Kentucky citizen and therefore destroys complete diversity. DE 7. Upon full briefing (DE 12; DE 14), Judge Atkins found the jurisdictional requirements satisfied and recommended that the Court retain the action. See DE 15 (R&R). No party objected within the allotted fourteen-day period. See id. at 5–6. While this Court reviews de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which a party objects, see

28 U.S.C. § 636

(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,

106 S. Ct. 466, 472

(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,

874 F.3d 490, 495

(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 15, DENIES DE 7, and retains the case federally, properly exercising diversity jurisdiction under the circumstances. This the 27th day of February, 2020.

Kes. Signed By: © Robert E. Wier GX p/ “3 United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown