Meury et al v. Olverson's Lodge Creek Marina, Inc. et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER that the Court: 1) ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in the R&R, (ECF No. 19 ); 2) OVERRULES Olverson's objections, (ECF No. 20 ); 3) OVERRULES the Marina's objections, (ECF No. 22 ); 4) DENIES Olverson's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4 ); and, 5) DENIES the Marina's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 9). See Order for details. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 4/14/2017. (sbea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
ERIC MEURY and VIKTORIA
NYARI,
Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16cv872

OLVERSON'S LODGE CREEK MARINA,
INC. and FREDERICK OLVERSON,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs Eric Meury and Viktoria Nyari (the "Plaintiffs") bring this negligence action
against Defendants Olverson's Lodge Creek Marina, Inc. (the "Marina") and its owner,
Frederick Olverson (collectively, the "Defendants") alleging that the Defendants breached
common law duties they owed to the Plaintiffs when the Plaintiffs rented a boat slip from the
Marina in October 2014.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable David J. Novak, United States Magistrate
Judge, pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and (C) and Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Novak filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
on December 19, 2016 (ECF No. 19), recommending that both Defendants' Motions to Dismiss,
(ECF Nos. 4, 9), be denied, (R&R 1, ECF No. 19). By copy of the Report and Recommendation,
each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and
recommendations made by Judge Novak. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On January 17, 2017,

Olverson filed Objections to the R&R, (ECF No. 20), and a "Memorandum in Support," (ECF
No. 21). On January 23, 2017, the Marina filed Objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 22.)
Olverson's objections "adopt[ed] and incorporate[d] his Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
... , his Brief in Support of his Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss ... , and his Rebuttal to
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss." (Def. Olverson's Objs.
R&R ~ 1, ECF No. 20.) The Marina's objections merely "adopt[] the objections filed by coDefendant [Olverson] ... , and incorporate[] by reference ... Olverson's Objections as well as
Olverson's Brief in Support of his Objections." (Def. Marina's Objs. R&R iJ 1, ECF No. 22.)
These statements are not cognizable objections addressable by the Court and are improper. See
United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1117 (4th Cir. 1992) (explaining that upon submission

of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, "the court ... 'shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made" (emphases added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l))). Further, all of

Olverson's individually-stated objections simply restate arguments made in Olverson's
Memorandum in Support of his Motion to Dismiss. (Compare Def. Olverson's Objs. R&R ~~
2-7, with Def. Olverson's Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 5-10, ECF No. 5.) To the extent the Court
were to consider the improperly presented objections, they would be overruled for the reasons
stated in the R&R.
Despite the improper manner in which Olverson and the Marina each presented their
objections, the Court nonetheless conducted a de novo review of the R&R and both Defendants'
objections. Finding no error, the Court:
1) ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in the R&R, (ECF No. 19);
2) OVERRULES Olverson's objections, (ECF No. 20);

2

3) OVERRULES the Marina's objections, (ECF No . 22);
4) DENIES Olverson's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4); and,
5) DENIES the Marina's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 6).
9

Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
It is so ORDERED.

4}

Date:
t 4 \ U>\r
Richmona, Virginia

3