Stewart v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford
Filing
87
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/17/2021 ADOPTING 86 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING 61 Motion for Summary Judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
COLLEEN STEWART,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-02418-TLN-KJN
ORDER
v.
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE CO. OF HARTFORD,
Defendant.
15
16
Plaintiff Colleen Stewart (“Plaintiff”), currently proceeding pro se,1 brings this civil action
17
18
against Defendant Property and Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford (“Defendant”) for alleged
19
breach of insurance contract and bad faith. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
20
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 21, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21
22
were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and
23
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 86.) No objections were
24
filed within those 14 days. However, after Plaintiff communicated with the courtroom deputy for
25
///
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff was represented by counsel when she initiated this lawsuit in 2017, but counsel
subsequently moved to withdraw as Plaintiff’s attorney in April 2019 and the Court granted
counsel’s motion in March 2020. (ECF Nos. 42, 59.) Plaintiff proceeded pro se thereafter.
1
1
the magistrate judge that she had not received the Findings and Recommendations, the Court re-
2
served them on Plaintiff. No objections were filed by Plaintiff after this re-service.2
3
The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
4
F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
5
See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28
6
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
7
Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings
8
and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 86) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
11
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED;
12
3. Judgment is entered for Defendant; and
13
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
DATED: March 17, 2021
16
17
18
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court is aware that Plaintiff emailed complaints to the magistrate judge’s courtroom
deputy, despite being informed multiple times that she could not communicate with the Court by
email. Further, service of the Findings and Recommendations at Plaintiff’s South Tahoe
residence was proper, given that this is the address Plaintiff listed with the Court, and Plaintiff
failed to submit a change of residence with the Court. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(f) (“Each appearing
attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any
change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice,
service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”)
2
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?