First National Insurance Company of America v. Livesay et al

Filing 15

ORDER approving 12 Memorandum and Recommendations and denying 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 02/16/2018. (ni)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00086-MR-DLH FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BRENDA LIVESAY and RONALD ) LIVESAY AND BRENDA LIVESAY ) FAMILY TRUST, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7]; the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 12] regarding the disposition of that motion; and the Defendants’ Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 14]. The Federal Magistrate Act requires a district court to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In order “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections have been raised. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, the Court need not conduct a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Defendants’ Objections do not identify any specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s proposed conclusions of law. Rather, the Defendants simply restate arguments made in support of their Motion to Dismiss. These kinds of objections do not warrant a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge. An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply 2 summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”). After a careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed conclusions of law are correct and are consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Objections [Doc. 14] are OVERRULED, and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 12] is ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: February 16, 2018 3

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?