Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-00126-KDB-DSC
07-29-2020
PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C., ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 22) and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") (Doc. No. 26), recommending that the motion be granted. The parties have not filed an objection to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
I. BACKGROUND
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's statement of the factual and procedural background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (explaining the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections have been raised).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court may designate a magistrate judge to "submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition" of dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may object to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, and 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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, "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" and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Also, the Court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's M&R, the relevant portions of the record and applicable legal authority, this Court is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R, to which no objection was made. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, this Court finds that it should adopt the findings and recommendations set forth in the M&R as its own and that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's M&R, (Doc. No. 26), is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant's Motion, (Doc. No. 22), is GRANTED; and
3. A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT is entered that Plaintiffs owe no duty to defend or indemnify the Defendants Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor P.C., Jason E. Taylor, Mark Farbman PA and Mark Farbman with respect to the claims made against them in Hatch v. DeMayo, No. 16-cv-925, United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
/s/_________
Kenneth D. Bell
United States District Judge
Signed: July 29, 2020