From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barnhart v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co.

United States District Court, District of Montana
Feb 23, 2023
CV 21-09-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Feb. 23, 2023)

Opinion

CV 21-09-BLG-SPW

02-23-2023

TAMARA BARNHART, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counter-Claimant.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUSAN P. WATTERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan's Findings and Recommendations, filed on January 27, 2023. (Doc. 43). Judge Cavan recommends this Court grant Defendant/Counter-Claimant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and deny Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Tamara Barnhart's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 31). After reviewing the filed objections and Defendant's response (Docs. 44, 46), the Court adopts Judge Cavan's Findings and Recommendations in full.

I. Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties were required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of the Findings and Recommendations. The parties are entitled to a de novo review of those findings to which they have “properly objected.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The portions of the findings and recommendations not properly objected to are reviewed for clear error. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000).

A proper objection “identifies] the parts of the magistrate's disposition that the party finds objectionable and present[s] legal argument and supporting authority, such that the district court is able to identify the issues and the reasons supporting a contrary result.” Mont. Shooting Sports Ass 'n v. Holder, No. CV 09-147-M-DWM-JCL, 2010 WL 4102940, at *2 (D. Mont. Oct. 18,2010). “It is not sufficient for the objecting party to merely restate arguments made before the magistrate or to incorporate those arguments by reference.” Id.

II. Analysis

Plaintiff lodges four objections to Judge Cavan's findings and recommendations. (See Doc. 44). However, none are proper because they are simply copied and pasted from her Combined Response/Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38) filed before Judge Cavan. (Cf. id. and Doc. 44). The only changes Plaintiff made were to replace her references to Defendant with Judge Cavan. Since Plaintiff merely restates the arguments she made to Judge Cavan, the Court overrules her objections and reviews the Findings and Recommendations for clear error.

After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find Judge Cavan committed clear error.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 43) are ADOPTED IN FULL.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Counter-Claimant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tamara Barnhart's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this matter.


Summaries of

Barnhart v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co.

United States District Court, District of Montana
Feb 23, 2023
CV 21-09-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Feb. 23, 2023)
Case details for

Barnhart v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:TAMARA BARNHART, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY…

Court:United States District Court, District of Montana

Date published: Feb 23, 2023

Citations

CV 21-09-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Feb. 23, 2023)