UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

ASHOK KADAMBI, M.D., et al. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 1:13-CV-321-JD-RBC 

 ) 

EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., et al. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

 On November 5, 2013, this case was removed to this Court from the Superior Court of 

Allen County, Indiana. [DE 3.] On December 12, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand 

back to Indiana state court, arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. [DE 15.] 

Defendants filed a response in opposition [DE 33] and Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of 

remand [DE 34]. 

On April 10, 2014, the undersigned referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Cobsey for a 

Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72(b), and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 72-1. [DE 38.] On April 21, 2014, 

Magistrate Judge Cosbey issued his Report and Recommendation. [DE 39.] In his Report and 

Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Cosbey recommends that the Motion to Remand be denied. 

[DE 39 at 11.] As of this date, no party has filed an objection to the Report and 

Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (affording the parties fourteen days to file 

objections). 

 The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is governed by 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part: 
2 

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). 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), however, the Court must only make 

a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrates Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation to which specific written objection have been made. Johnson v. Zema 

Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (setting forth 

procedures for objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the 

District Court’s standard of review for resolving objections). If no objection or only a 

partial objection is made, the Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. 

Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. In addition, failure to file objections with the district court also 

“waives the right to appeal all issues addressed in the recommendation, both factual and 

legal.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can only overturn a Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 

1997). 

 Both section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) permit the parties to file objections to a Report and 

Recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the same. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). More than 14 days have passed since the entry of Magistrate 

Judge Cosbey’s Report and Recommendation, and no party has filed an objection. 
3 

Consequently, because the time period for objections as passed, the Court considers there to be 

no objection to Magistrate Judge Cosbey’s Report and Recommendation. 

 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error therein, the 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety [DE 39] and incorporates all of 

Magistrate Judge Cosbey’s findings and recommendations into this order. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is DENIED. [DE 15.] 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: June 10, 2014 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court