Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00440/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00440-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Breach of Contract- Insurance

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jenifer Patterson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance Co., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-440-TUC-FRZ (JJM)

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

This action, originally filed in the Arizona Superior Court in and for the County of

Pima and removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, was referred to Magistrate

Judge Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of

the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Local

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand on July 27, 2011.

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ opposition and Plaintiff’s reply

thereto, Magistrate Judge Marshall issued her Report and Recommendation on September

21, 2011, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the record,

enter an order denying Plaintiff’s motion. 

Case 4:11-cv-00440-FRZ-JR Document 14 Filed 10/25/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Report and Recommendation advised “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific

written objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a)

and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . . . Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's

right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

No objections were filed.

The Court finds, after consideration of the Report and Recommendation, and no

objections filed thereto, that the findings of the Magistrate Judge shall be accepted and

adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court. Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 13) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of

law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge

Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of

the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Local

Rules of Civil Procedure.

All future filings in this case shall be designated: CV 11-440 TUC-FRZ (JJM)

DATED this 25th day of October, 2011.

Case 4:11-cv-00440-FRZ-JR Document 14 Filed 10/25/11 Page 2 of 2