Castle v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London) DANNY CASTLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 6:24-CV-186-CHB-HAI ) v. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INC., ) JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED et al., ) DISPOSITION ) Defendants. ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram, [R. 12]. The Recommended Disposition addresses the Motion to Remand to Harlan Circuit Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(C) filed by Plaintiff Danny Castle, [R. 8], in which Plaintiff seeks to remand this case to Harlan Circuit Court. Id. In his Recommended Disposition, Magistrate Judge Ingram detailed the facts that support remanding this case to Harlan Circuit Court, [R. 12], and applied the relevant case law to examine whether Defendant Brown was fraudulently joined in this matter. Id. The Magistrate Judge ultimately recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Harlan Circuit Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(C) be granted and the case be remanded because this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction to hear the claims in this matter. Id. at 4. In reaching this conclusion, the Magistrate Judge found that “Plaintiff maintains a colorable basis for recovery against Defendant Michael Brown under Kentucky negligence law,” sufficient to defeat Defendants’ claim of fraudulent joinder. Id. at 1, 4. Magistrate Judge Ingram’s Recommended Disposition advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days. Id. at 4. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Recommended Disposition nor sought an extension of time to do so. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommended Disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that Recommended Disposition. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition, [R. 12], is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. Plaintiff Danny Castle’s Motion to Remand to Harlan Circuit Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(C), [R. 8], is GRANTED. 3. This matter is REMANDED back to Harlan Circuit Court, Case No. 23-C]-00386. This the 24th day of February, 2025.

(Monin How Boon Wai aie a cert COURT JUDGE QS’ EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF “a KENTUCKY

-2-