Tamesha Parker v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., Rikki Casarez, Christopher Wulf, and John Doe

• Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00505
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TAMESHA PARKER,

Plaintiff, 8:25CV505

v. ORDER CASEY’S GENERAL STORES, INC., RIKKI CASAREZ, CHRISTOPHER WULF, and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

On September 18, 2025, plaintiff Tamesha Parker (“Parker”) filed a pro se Objection to Notice of Removal and requested leave to amend her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (Filing No. 11). Parker also filed a Motion to Remand (Filing No. 12) to the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. The magistrate judge1 denied her request to amend and issued a Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 15) recommending the Court overrule Parker’s objection to removal and deny the motion to remand. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days to object. Neither has. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); NECivR 72.2. Section 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review of a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations only when a party timely objects. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991). The absence of a timely objection “eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the district court.” Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009). Because the Court has not received any objections, IT IS ORDERED:

1The Honorable Ryan C. Carson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. 1. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 15) are accepted. Any objections are deemed waived. 2. Plaintiff Tamesha Parker’s Objection to Notice of Removal (Filing No. 11) and Motion to Remand (Filing No. 12) are denied.

Dated this 25th day of November 2025. BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge