Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. McGuffin et al

Filing 49

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company, adopting 44 Report and Recommendation. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings pertaining to the two remaining defendants, Charles McGuffin and Gloria McGuffin.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/30/17. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON DIVISION
Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Charles McGuffin, Gloria McGuffin, and
)
Chris McGuffin,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________

Civil Action No. 8:17-428-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On October 4, 2017,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 44.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Defendants filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on October 23,
2017. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, this Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the

recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in
the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory
committee’s note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has no defense or indemnification
obligations to Defendant Chris McGuffin under its homeowner’s policy issued to Charles
and Gloria McGuffin.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
herein by reference, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37) is
GRANTED. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial
proceedings pertaining to the two remaining defendants, Charles McGuffin and Gloria
McGuffin.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 30, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.