Warner v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 29

ORDER: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation 27 . Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment 10 is granted for Warner's short-term disability benefits claim, but the issue of attor ney's fees and costs is reserved, and granted for Warners long-term disability benefits claim, but dismissed without prejudice. Defendants' motion is otherwise denied. The Court also finds that Warner has met the Proof of Loss Requirements provision of the long-term disability benefits policy. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 8/29/2012 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

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

KURT WARNER,

No. 03:11-CV-598-ST
Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, MUTUAL OF OMAHA
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OREGON
PUBLIC BROADCASTING SHORT TERM
AND LONG TERM DISABILITY PLANS,
Defendants.

Richard H. Rizk
Attorney at Law
1332 SW Custer Drive
Portland, OR 97219
Attorney for Plaintiff
///
///
///
1 - ORDER

ORDER

William T. Patton
Lane Powell, PC
601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
Portland, OR 97204-3158
Attorney for Defendants
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#27) on August 1,
2012, in which she recommends that this Court grant in part Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (#10). Judge Stewart recommended that this Court (1) grant the motion for Warner’s
short-term disability benefits claim, but reserve the issue of attorney’s fees and costs; (2) grant
the motion for Warner’s long-term disability benefits claim, but dismiss the claim without
prejudice; (3) find that Warner has met the Proof of Loss Requirements provision of the longterm disability benefits policy; and (4) otherwise deny Defendants’ motion. The matter is now
before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were
timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt,
840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de
novo, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation (#27).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#10) is granted for Warner’s shortterm disability benefits claim, but the issue of attorney’s fees and costs is reserved, and granted
for Warner’s long-term disability benefits claim, but dismissed without prejudice. Defendants’
2 - ORDER

motion is otherwise denied. The Court also finds that Warner has met the Proof of Loss
Requirements provision of the long-term disability benefits policy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

day of August, 2012.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER