Melisa S. Dargan, Administrator of the Estate of Kawanza Jamal Beaty v. The City of Newport News, Virginia et al
Filing
71
Final Order - Before the Court is Plaintiffs Second Motion for Settlement, ECF No. 46 , and Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Settlement, ECF No. 50 , which were filed in accordance with Virginia's Wrongful Death Statute, Virginia Code § 8.01 -55. This Court has reviewed the R&R of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 70 ) and ADOPTS and APPROVES in full the findings and recommendations set forth therein. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Settlement (ECF No. [ 50]) is GRANTED, and the settlement proceeds shall be disbursed as stated herein. Plaintiffs Second Motion for Settlement (ECF No. 46 ) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Final Order to all counsel of record. Copies distributed as directed. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 4/7/2017. (cchr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Newport News Division
- 7 2017
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK. VA
MELISA S. DARGAN,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE
OF KAWANZA JAMAL
BEATY, deceased,
Plaintiff,
V.
CivilNo.4:15cvll5
OFFICER RANDY GIBSON,
Defendant.
FINAL ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Second Motion for Settlement, ECF No. 46, and Plaintiffs
Amended Motion for Settlement, ECF No. 50, which were filed in accordance with Virginia's
Wrongful Death Statute, Virginia Code § 8.01-55. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72 of the Rules of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and by Order dated October 18,
2016, this matter was referred to a United Stales Magistrate Judge for a Report and
Recommendation.
In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed March 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
made the following findings: (1) the amount of the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable;
(2) reimbursement of funeral expenses must be made prior to any distribution to beneficiaries of
the estate under the Virginia Wrongful Death Act; and (3) it is unnecessary to determine the
paternity of K.J.B. See ECF No. 70. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting
Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Settlement, ECF No. 50, and distributing the settlement
proceeds as follows: Defendant to pay the sum of $6,700.00 to counsel for Plaintiff Melisa S.
1
Dargan, Administrator of the Estate of Kawanza Jamal Beaty, with $2,200.00 to be disbursed to
the Law Office of James Stephen Ellenson for attorneys' fees, and $4,500.00 to be disbursed to
Ms. Shirley Mae McPhatter for funeral expenses. The Magistrate Judge also recommended
dismissing Plaintiffs Second Motion for Settlement, ECF No. 46, as moot. ECF No. 70 at 13.
By copy of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the
findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge within fourteen days from the date
the R&R was mailed, pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The time
for filing written objections has passed, and neither party has filed objections. As indicated in
the R&R, "failure to file timely specific written objections to the . . . findings and
recommendations [set forth in the R&R] will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a
judgment of this Court based on such findings and recommendations." Id. at 14.
This Court has reviewed the R&R of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 70) and ADOPTS
and APPROVES in full the findings and recommendations set forth therein. Accordingly, it is
hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Settlement (ECF No. 50) is
GRANTED, and the settlement proceeds shall be disbursed as stated herein. Plaintiffs Second
Motion for Settlement (ECF No. 46) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Final Order to all counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
^
(^^ndal/^right Allen
UmtSa'STates District Judge
l/_2_,2017
orfolk, Virginia
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?