Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation v. Amaya-Mata et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING 57 Report and Recommendations; Further, denying without prejudice to their refiling 49 Motion for Default Judgment and 53 Motion to Amend/Correct; Motion for Default Judgment. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on March 12, 2018. (mjm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION ALFA VISION INSURANCE CORPORATION v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:17-CV-02066 ADELE AMAYA-MATA, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received a report and recommendations (Doc. 57) from United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford on Plaintiff’s pending motions (Docs. 49, 53) for default judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel has informed the Court that Plaintiff does not object to the report and recommendations, and the Court will review the report and recommendations even though the deadline to object has not yet passed. The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate’s report and recommendation. The Magistrate recommends denial of the motions without prejudice to refiling so that Alfa may support its alleged entitlement to default judgment, and so that “a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other such representative” may enter an appearance for the minor Defendants. The report and recommendation is proper and contains no error, and is ADOPTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Docs. 49, 53) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR REFILING. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford under 28 § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) for resolution of future matters arising in this case, including entry of an order appointing a guardian ad litem or another appropriate order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2018. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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?