Opinion
Civil Action 23-cv-00214-RM-MDB
10-23-2023
CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DINA MILLER, Defendant.
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, Senior United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell (ECF No. 43) to transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation, and none has been filed. For the reasons below, the Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
“In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
This insurance dispute arises from the partial sinking of Defendant's sea vessel, which was insured with Plaintiff under a policy without a forum selection clause. After Plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking primarily declaratory relief, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Transfer the Case for Forum Non Conveniens (ECF No. 26), which was referred to the magistrate judge for a recommendation. Defendant asserts that transfer is appropriate because, among other reasons, the vessel was docked, used, compromised, and repaired in Florida. After the Motion was fully briefed, the magistrate judge issued the Recommendation.
The magistrate judge determined that relevant private- and public-interest factors weigh heavily in favor of transfer as nearly every aspect of the case has a Florida nexus. Those factors need not be recounted here. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F.Supp.3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge's work in the absence of any objection); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The magistrate judge further determined that transfer, rather than dismissal, would be the more efficient means to advance the case.
The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis of the issues presented in Defendant's Motion. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 43). Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED IN PART with respect to the request for a transfer, and the Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Defendant's Motion is otherwise DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.