Opinion
Civil 7:23-CV-00227
09-27-2023
KASSANDRA CABRERA and MARTIN CABRERA, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is the September 13, 2023 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 7). Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, (Dkt. No. 5), be denied. (Dkt. No. 7).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). On September 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed two objections. (Dkt. No. 8). First, Plaintiffs objected to Judge Bray's consideration of attorney's fees in computing the amount in controversy. (Dkt. No. 8 at 1). Second, Plaintiffs objected to Judge Bray's consideration of the property damage insurance policy in computing the amount in controversy. (Dkt. No. 8 at 2).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Judge Bray's M&R (Dkt. No. 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, (Dkt. No. 5), is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.