Kamper v. The Hartford

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 30 Report and Recommendations. Denying 17 Ms. Kampers Motion for Decision on the Administrative Record ; granting 22 The Hartfords Motion for Summary Judgment on ERISA Claims. Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner no longer assigned to case. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 3/20/2018. (jds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MICHELLE KAMPER,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND ENTERING
JUDGMENT

THE HARTFORD,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00101
District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Plaintiff Michelle Kamper filed a Motion for Decision on the Administrative Record
(ECF No. 17), and Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment on ERISA Claim (ECF No. 22). Both matters were referred to Magistrate
Judge Paul M. Warner under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Both matters were fully briefed, and after
review of the parties’ briefings, Judge Warner issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
30). Judge Warner recommended that this court deny Ms. Kamper’s motion and grant the
Hartford’s motion.
Ms. Kamper filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31). She
does not object to the Report and Recommendation’s findings of fact nor does she object to the
Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review
applies to her ERISA claim. Rather, Ms. Kamper argues, without citing any legal authority, that
the Report and Recommendation misapplied the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review to
the undisputed facts. The Hartford responded to Ms. Kamper’s objection, arguing that this court
should adopt the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32).

If a party objects to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court reviews those portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see
also In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583-84 (10th Cir. 1995). “The filing of objections to a
magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and
legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop.,
With Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985)). As such, if neither party objects to certain
portions of a report and recommendation, the district court need only determine that there is no
“clear error” with respect to those portions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note
(1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.
1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879). 1
Here, Ms. Kamper does not object to the Report and Recommendation’s findings of fact
and its conclusion that the arbitrary-and-capricious standard or review applies to her ERISA
claim. Therefore, the court reviews those portions of the Report and Recommendation for “clear
error.” Ms. Kamper does, however, object to the Report and Recommendation’s application of
the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review to the undisputed facts, and therefore the court
must determine de novo whether the Report and Recommendation correctly applied the arbitraryand-capricious standard of review to the undisputed facts.

1

The Tenth Circuit has adopted the firm-waiver rule. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop.,
With Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996).
Under this rule, “the failure to make timely objections to the magistrate’s findings or
recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. (quoting
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). Precluding appellate review of any
issue not raised in an objection “prevents a litigant from ‘sandbagging’ the district judge by
failing to object and then appealing.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 147-48.
2

Based on this court’s review of the record, the relevant legal authority, and the Report
and Recommendation, the court concludes that the Report and Recommendation correctly
applied the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review to the undisputed facts. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Ms. Kamper’s Motion for Decision on the Administrative Record (ECF No. 17) is
DENIED;
3. The Hartford’s Motion for Summary Judgment on ERISA Claims (ECF No. 22) is
GRANTED;
4. Judgment is entered in favor of Hartford and against Ms. Kamper on Ms.
Kamper’s ERISA cause of action; and
5. The clerk of the court is directed to close the case.

Signed March 20, 2018
BY THE COURT

______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge

3