Phillipe Porter v. Tae Walters and Containerport Group Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

PHILLIPE PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO.: 2:26-CV-203-TLS-AZ

TAE WALTERS and CONTAINERPORT GROUP INC.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Findings, Report, and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) [ECF No. 14], filed by Magistrate Judge Abizer Zanzi on June 12, 2026. On May 5, 2026, the Defendants filed a notice of removal, removing this case from Lake County Indiana Superior Court, invoking only the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. The notice of removal provides that the Plaintiff Phillipe Porter is a citizen of Illinois and that the Defendant Tae Walters is a citizen of Indiana. ECF No. 1. On June 4, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand [ECF No. 12]. The Plaintiff seeks remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), which provides that an action removeable only on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, such as this case, may not be removed if any of the parties properly joined and served is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. Defendant Walters is a citizen of Indiana who was served before removal, and there is no assertion that Defendant Walters was improperly joined. The Defendants filed a response on June 9, 2026, indicating that they have no objection to the motion to remand. Thus, Judge Zanzi recommends the Court grant the motion to remand and remand this matter to state court. The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), which provides as follows: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”). Portions of a recommendation to which no party objects are reviewed for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Judge Zanzi gave the parties notice that they had fourteen days to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 14. As of the date of this Order, neither party has filed an objection, and the time to do so has passed. The Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). CONCLUSION Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS, IN WHOLE, the Findings, Report, and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) [ECF No. 14], GRANTS the Motion to Remand [ECF No. 12], and ORDERS that this case is REMANDED to the Lake County, Indiana, Superior Court. SO ORDERED on June 30, 2026. s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT