Auto Owners Insurance Company v. Randy B Terry Inc et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 12/16/13. (ASL)

Download PDF
FILED 2013 Dec-16 PM 02:38 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RANDY B. TERRY, INC.; RANDY B. TERRY, Defendants. } } } } } } } } } } } Case No. 5:12-CV-02717-TMP MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 6, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation in this matter recommending that the court enter a default preliminary injunction to (1) require Defendants to deposit with the Clerk of Court the sum of $263,000 as a security deposit against the sums to which Auto-Owners will be entitled for indemnification; (2) require Defendants to immediately allow Plaintiff access to, and make available, all records, accounts, and documents relevant to Defendants’ business and the contract with the Lawrence County Commission; and (3) prohibiting Defendants from selling, leasing, liening, encumbering, damaging, destroying, or otherwise dissipating or disposing of Defendants’ equipment, inventory, accounts, intangibles, and other assets pending entry of a final judgment in this action. (Doc. # 15). Although objections to the Report and Recommendation were due to be filed by November 20, 2013, no objections were filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all of the materials in the court file,1 including the Report and Recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the Report is due to be, and hereby is, ADOPTED, and the Recommendation is ACCEPTED. A separate order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2013. ___________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 The court notes that it was not required to conduct an independent review of the Report and Recommendation in this case because no party has filed objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)(“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Nevertheless, the court has reviewed the Magistrate’s Report and agrees with his conclusions. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?