Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Roger Barone moved to remand the action or, alternatively, asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and sever and remand his state-law claims. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On August 21, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. Barone timely objected, defendant Checkr, Inc. responded, and Barone sought leave to file a short reply. The district court granted leave and deemed the reply properly filed.
The Court’s Holding
After conducting a de novo review of Barone’s objections, Checkr’s response, and Barone’s reply, the district court concluded that the magistrate judge’s findings were correct. It adopted the report and recommendation as the court’s findings.
The court denied Barone’s motion in full. Accordingly, it neither remanded the action nor declined supplemental jurisdiction and severed and remanded the state-law claims.
Key Takeaways
- The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation de novo.
- The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny remand.
- The court also rejected the alternative request to decline supplemental jurisdiction and sever and remand the state-law claims.
Why It Matters
The ruling keeps the dispute, including the state-law claims addressed by Barone’s alternative request, in federal court. The brief order does not independently detail the underlying claims or jurisdictional analysis; it adopts the magistrate judge’s findings after reviewing the parties’ objections-related briefing.