Opinion
Civil Action 22-cv-02874-RM-MDB
02-14-2023
REGINA HICKS, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER
RAYMOND'P. MOORE, DISTRICT JUDGE
This insurance case is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell (ECF No. 23) to remand this case to the El Paso County District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. More than fourteen days have elapsed since the Recommendation was issued, and no objection has been filed. For the reasons below, the Court accepts the recommendation, which is incorporated into this order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
“In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
After Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in state court, Defendant removed it to this Court by invoking federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, the Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1) failed to address the “amount in controversy” requirement for diversity jurisdiction, prompting the magistrate judge to issue an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 18) as to why the case should not be remanded back to state court. As noted in the Recommendation, Defendant's Response (ECF No. 22) to the Order to Show Cause provides no factual support for its conclusory assertion that Plaintiff's damages amount to $75,000, and the Complaint alleges Defendant failed to pay just $18,622.27 in benefits purportedly due under Plaintiff's policy. The magistrate judge concluded that Defendant had not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy may exceed $75,000. As noted above, Defendant filed no written objection to the Recommendation.
The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis of the jurisdictional issue presented. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F.Supp.3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge's work in the absence of any objection).
Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation (ECF No. 23) and REMANDS this case to the El Paso County District Court.