Farley et al v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. et al

Filing 75

ORDER: Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R 68 is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Plaintiffs' "Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment" 74 is hereby DENIED; (3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 59 is he reby GRANTED; (4) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (5) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment on a separate document in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 5/3/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw) Modified on 5/3/2013 (tmw).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ROGER FARLEY and wife,
CAROLYN FARLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY
CO. and JOSEPH ROOKER, AGENT
for STATE FARM INSURANCE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:10-00096
Judge Sharp

ORDER
This dispute concerns Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.’s failure to pay on an
insurance policy where Plaintiffs’ home suffered a fire, and they admitted that items claimed in the
inventory of contents list they submitted to State Farm were not in the home at the time of the fire.
The Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’
unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because (1) the undisputed evidence is that
the policy at issue contained a clause explicitly voiding the policy if any insured concealed or
misrepresented a material fact or circumstance, and (2) even if Defendant Joseph Rooker, as State
Farm’s agent, erroneously completed the application for insurance on Plaintiffs’ behalf, Plaintiffs
did not suffer any harm from that action because State Farm could properly deny the claim based
upon the misrepresentations Plaintiff made on the inventory of contents list.
The R & R was entered on January 24, 2013, and Plaintiffs were specifically informed that
any objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service of the R & R. On February 11, 2013,

1

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment.”
To the extent Plaintiffs’ filing is intended as a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment
it is untimely, filed as it was some four months after Defendants filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment. It also wholly fails to comply with this Court’s Local Rules for responses because it does
not directly respond to the statements of fact filed by Defendants, nor does it cite the record. See,
L.R. 7.01 & L.R. 56.01. And, to the extent Plaintiffs’ filing is intended as objections to the R & R,
it is deficient because it does not even address the R &R, and does not comply with Rule 72(b)’s
requirement that a party “file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b0(2).
Regardless, the Court has considered Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment,”
as well as Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and the filing made in relation thereto, and
finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the law to the facts properly presented.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 68) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 74) is hereby DENIED;
(3) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 59) is hereby GRANTED;
(4) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
(5) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment on a separate document in accordance with
Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2