From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oliver v. McNeil-PPC, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 12, 2013
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01865-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01865-AWI-SAB

03-12-2013

THERESA OLIVER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McNEIL-PPC, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMANDING

ACTION TO FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT

(ECF Nos. 10, 27, 30, 32)


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AS

MOOT (ECF No. 34)

Defendants removed this action from Fresno County Superior Court on November 13, 2010. On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 4, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a findings and recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection was to be filed within fifteen days. On February 15, 2013, Defendants filed a request for reconsideration by the district court and requesting that a factual error be corrected in the findings and recommendations. On February 19, 2013, an order amending the findings and recommendations issued. More than fifteen days have passed and no party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Since the findings and recommendations have been amended to correct the factual error, Defendants' request for reconsideration shall be denied as moot.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 4, 2013, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants' request for reconsideration, filed February 15, 2013, is denied as moot;

3. All pending motions are to be terminated;

4. This action is remanded back to Fresno County Superior Court; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Oliver v. McNeil-PPC, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 12, 2013
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01865-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013)
Case details for

Oliver v. McNeil-PPC, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THERESA OLIVER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McNEIL-PPC, INC., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 12, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01865-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013)