Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Goulet Trucking, Inc.

Full title: NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., v. GOULET TRUCKING, INC., Alias, and…

Court: United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

Date published: May 9, 2005

No. CA 04-382ML (D.R.I. May. 9, 2005)

Opinion

No. CA 04-382ML.

May 9, 2005

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARY LISI, District Judge

On April 18, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Martin issued his Report and Recommendation wherein he recommends that the complaint be dismissed unless within 20 days of this Court's order to that effect, plaintiff comply with outstanding orders to produce discovery requested by defendants. Plaintiff has not filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. This matter will be dismissed unless plaintiff complies with previous orders of this Court to comply with defendant's discovery requests within 20 days of the date of this order. Defendant is directed to notify the Clerk as to whether plaintiff has complied with this order.

SO ORDERED:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

David L. Martin, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is Defendants' Motion for a Conditional Order of Dismissal (Document #10) (the "Motion"). Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.¹ ("Plaintiff") has not filed an objection to the Motion. The matter has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for preliminary review, findings, and recommended disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and D.R.I. Local R. 32 (a).

1 On April 5, 2005, a stipulation was entered substituting the name of Plaintiff from INA Petroleum, Inc., to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., as subrogee of INA Petroleum, Inc. See Document #13.

In their Motion,² Defendants Goulet Trucking, Inc., and Scott Harper (collectively "Defendants") recite that an order granting their motion to compel answers to interrogatories and response to Defendants' first request for production of documents (Document #7) was entered on January 10, 2005. See Motion; see also Order dated 1/10/05 (Document #8) (granting motion by rule of court, no objection having been filed). Defendants further state that according to that order, Plaintiff's responses were due by January 30, 2005, but that as of the date of the Motion, none had been received. See Motion. Defendants on March 7, 2005, filed the instant Motion.

2 The court notes that Defendants failed to file a memorandum in support of their Motion as required by D.R.I. Local Rule 12 (a) (1). However, the motion contains sufficient information for the court to make its findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, the court recommends that the Motion be granted and that a conditional order of dismissal be entered stating that the Complaint will be dismissed within twenty days of that order if the requested discovery responses are not forthcoming. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days of its receipt. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (b); D.R.I. Local R. 32. Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the district court and of the right to appeal the district court's decision. See United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1^st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1^st Cir. 1980).