Evraz Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company

Filing 382

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 377 as my own opinion. Signed on 9/23/15 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

EVRAZ INC., NA, a Delaware Corporation,
No. 3:08-cv-00447-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S.,
v.
THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
CENTRAL NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF OMAHA, a Nebraska
corporation; CENTURY INDEMNITY
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
GRANITE STATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York corporation;
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation;
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania
corporation; NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH PA, a Pennsylvania
company; RLI INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation; STONEWALL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska
corporation; WESTCHESTER FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York
corporation; WESTPORT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation;
ZURICH-AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York corporation,
Defendants,
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a
Pennsylvania corporation; and
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign insurance
company,
Third Party Defendants,
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
corporation,
Counter Claimant,
v.
EVRAZ OREGON STEEL MILLS,
INC., a Delaware corporation,
Counter Defendant,
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a
Pennsylvania corporation; and
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign insurance
company,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendant,
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY,
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Counter Claimant,
v.
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
corporation,
Counter Defendant.

MOSMAN, J.,
On September 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [377], recommending that I GRANT Plaintiff Evraz, Inc. and
Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company’s Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement [368].
No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

3 – OPINION AND ORDER

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [377]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

24th

day of September, 2015.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman
_
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge

4 – OPINION AND ORDER