Transportation Insurance Company v. Central National Insurance Company of Omaha et al

Filing 97

OPINION AND ORDER: I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF88] as my own opinion. I GRANT defendants Acme Trading Company of Portland's, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha's, and Pacific Em ployers Insurance Company's Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 60, 63, 65] and DENY Transportation Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 67]. Signed on 12/16/2021 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (See attached 2-paged Opinion and Order). (pg)

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

TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00734-YY
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER

V.

CENTRAL NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMP ANY OF OMAHA, et al.,
Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,
On October 12, 2021, Magistrate Judge Y oulee Yim You issued her Findings and
Recommendation ("F. & R.") [ECF 88]. Judge You recommends that I grant defendants Acme
Trading Company of Portland's, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha's, and Pacific
Employers Insurance Company's Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 60, 63, 65] and deny
Transportation Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 67]. Objections were
due on October 26, 2021. Plaintiff filed objections [ECF 90] and Defendants filed responses
[ECF 91, 92]. I agree with Judge You.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 fmdings or
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(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)(l)(C).

CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF
88] as my own opinion. I GRANT defendants Acme Trading Company of Portland's, Central
National Insurance Company of Omaha's, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company's Motions
for Summary Judgment [ECF 60, 63, 65] and DENY Transportation Insurance Company's
Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 67].
IT IS SO ORDEREI).

nee
day of December, 2021.
!#,''

DATED this

MICHAEL W. M/
United States I:Jlstrict Judge

2 - OPINION AND ORDER