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)

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