Landmark American Insurance Company v. Accord Architects & Engineers LLC et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 80 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 49 ] and mo tion for default judgment [ECF No. 50 ] and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Court DECLARES that Plaintiff Landmark Insurance Company does not have any duty either to provide Defendants Accord Architects & Engineers, LLC; Bret Allan Turkall; Bradley C. Jordan; Christopher R. Clark; or Jonathan D. Goerling with a defense in the BES litigation or to indemnify these Defendants for any judgment in the BES litigation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/8/2017. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Landmark American Insurance Company,
Accord Architects & Engineers, LLC; Bret )
Allan Turkall; Bradley C. Jordan;
Christopher R. Clark; Jonathan D. Goerling; )
and BES Design/Build LLC,
Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-01475-RBH
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 80]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
(1) grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and motion for default judgment, and (2) issue a
declaration that Plaintiff does not owe either a duty of defense or indemnity to certain Defendants in
a pending state court action. R & R at pp. 14–15.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review
and a party’s right to appeal this Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d
1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); Carr v. Hutto, 737 F.2d 433, 434 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 80] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 49] and motion for default
judgment [ECF No. 50] and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Court DECLARES that
Plaintiff Landmark Insurance Company does not have any duty either to provide Defendants Accord
Architects & Engineers, LLC; Bret Allan Turkall; Bradley C. Jordan; Christopher R. Clark; or Jonathan
D. Goerling with a defense in the BES litigation or to indemnify these Defendants for any judgment in
the BES litigation. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
November 8, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Any objections from Plaintiff and Defendant BES Design/Build, LLC (which are represented by counsel)
were due by November 3, 2017, and the pro se parties’ objections were due by November 6, 2017. See ECF Nos.
80 & 81.
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?