Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Lee et al

Filing 52

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 50 the R&R is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 10/15/2017, plaintiff shall pay into court the One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($ ;125,000) death benefit due as of 12/2/2016, plus interest accrued under the terms of the policy, less $6,000 in fees and costs. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/21/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Finance - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

ORDER
Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:17-CV-900 JCM (VCF)

v.
FAITH LEE, et al.,
Defendant(s).

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

This is an interpleader action initiated by plaintiff Prudential Insurance Company of
America. (ECF No. 1). Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and
recommendation (R&R). (ECF No. 50). The deadline to object to the R&R was August 28, 2017.
That deadline has passed by over two weeks and no party has objected.
On August 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommended the following:
1. On or before a date set by the district judge, plaintiff should pay into court the One
Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($125,000) death benefit due as of 12/2/2016, plus interest
accrued under the terms of the policy, less $6,000 in fees and costs;
2. Upon payment of that sum into court, defendants should be enjoined from instituting or
prosecuting any proceeding in any state or United States court affecting the death benefit and/or
the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Plan, group policy number G-32000 ("SGLI Plan");
3. Upon payment of that sum into court, plaintiff should be discharged from any and all
further liability to defendants relating in any way to the SGLI Plan and/or death benefit; and
4. Faith Lee's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 5) should be denied.

1

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

2

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

3

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

4

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

5

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

6

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

7

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

8

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

9

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

10

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

11

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

12

objections were made).

13

Nonetheless, having reviewed the briefing and documents before the court, and finding

14

good cause, and there being no objections to the R&R, this court adopts recommendations 1–3 of

15

the R&R and denies recommendation 4 as moot. (See ECF No. 51) (denying Lee’s motion for

16

summary judgment on other grounds).

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the R&R (ECF No. 50) is

19

ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before October 15, 2017, plaintiff shall pay into

21

court the One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($125,000) death benefit due as of

22

12/2/2016, plus interest accrued under the terms of the policy, less $6,000 in fees and costs.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon plaintiff’s complete payment of that sum into court,

24

defendants are enjoined from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any state or United

25

States court affecting the death benefit and/or the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Plan,

26

group policy number G-32000 ("SGLI Plan").

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon plaintiff’s complete payment of that sum into court,

2

plaintiff should be discharged from any and all further liability to defendants relating in any way

3

to the SGLI Plan and/or death benefit.

4
5
6

DATED September 21, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-