Walker v. Walmart, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION

WILMA WALKER PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 5:25-cv-9-BJB WALMART, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS kkk □□□ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Wilma Walker moved to remand this case to state court, arguing that the Bunzl Defendants* failed to meet their burden of proving diversity jurisdiction. DN 17 at 3. The Court referred Walker’s motion to remand to Magistrate Judge King for a Report and Recommendation. DN 25. Because Walker’s motion is intertwined with the Bunzl Defendants’ pending motion for extension of time to file corporate disclosure statements (DN 14), Judge King addressed both motions in his Report and Recommendation. Judge King recommended the Court grant the Bunzl Defendants’ motion for an extension of time and deny Walker’s motion to remand. DN 27 at 1. No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation. So the law allows this Court to adopt it without review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed and finds no error in Judge King’s conclusions. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (DN 27), grants the Bunzl Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (DN 14), and denies Walker's motion to remand (DN 17).

* The Bunzl Defendants include McCue Corporation; Bunz] USA Holdings, LLC; Bunzl Distribution USA, LLC; Bunzl Retail Services, LLC; Bunzl Distribution, Inc.; and Bunzl Distribution Leasing, Inc.