Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. Thomas

United States District Court, Third Circuit

December 4, 2013

KAYLA WRIGHT and AMBER CALLAHAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
NANETTE THOMAS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2013, upon consideration of the reports (Docs. 21-22) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the court deny plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 6) to remand the above-captioned action to state court for failure to timely remove, and grant defendants' motion (Doc. 3) to dismiss plaintiffs' federal and state law claims, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing to the court that the magistrate judge appropriately concluded that the action was timely removed to this court following plaintiffs' amendment of their state court pleading to include an unambiguous federal claim, (see Doc. 21), and the court agreeing with the magistrate judge that plaintiffs' federal claims lack substantive merit and are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity, (see Doc. 22), but the court observing that the interest of judicial economy would be best served by remanding plaintiffs' remaining state law claims to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, rather than dismissing the same without prejudice, and the court observing that neither party has objected to the reports, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record, [1] see Nara v. Frank , 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 21) recommending that the court deny plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 6) to remand is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 6) to remand the above-captioned matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, is DENIED.
3. The report of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 22) recommending that the court dismiss plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. 1-3) is ADOPTED to the extent it recommends dismissal of plaintiffs' federal claims with prejudice. The court declines to adopt the portion of the report recommending dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.
4. Defendants' motion (Doc. 3) to dismiss is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiffs' federal claims and denied in all other respects.
5. Plaintiffs' federal due process and 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
6. The above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, for resolution of the remaining state law claims.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.