From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaMarche v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Maine
Dec 16, 2002
236 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Me. 2002)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-123-B-H.

December 16, 2002

John A. Woodcock, Jr., Weatherbee, Woodcock, Curlock Woodcock, Bangor, ME, for Paul H. Lamarche, In his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Erlinda Plvorosa Lamarche and as Trustee of the Erlinda Polvorosa Family Trust, plaintiff.

Jon Haddow, Farrell, Robesnlatt Russell, Bangor, ME, for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, defendant.


ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE


The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court on November 6, 2002, with copies to counsel, her Recommended Decision on Lorna Armesto's Motion for Summary Judgment and Related, Non-Dispositive Motions. The time within which to file objections expired on November 25, 2002, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Third-party defendant Armesto's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

LaMarche v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Maine
Dec 16, 2002
236 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Me. 2002)
Case details for

LaMarche v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:PAUL H. LaMARCHE, PLAINTIFF v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., DEFENDANT…

Court:United States District Court, D. Maine

Date published: Dec 16, 2002

Citations

236 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Me. 2002)

Citing Cases

Godfried v. Ford Motor Co.

See EBC, Inc., 618 F.3d at 268; Hambleton, 397 F.3d at 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A statement of reasons…

Sun Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Colavito

And, even if the Court accepted that Matthew was unaware of his Sun Life policy, Nonmovants have not alleged…