Summary
dismissing appeal from a Magistrate's order in matter in which there was no adoption of the Magistrate's order by the Chancellor or a Vice Chancellor under Rule 144(c) and there was no stipulation under 10 Del. C. § 350
Summary of this case from Burley v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Am's.Opinion
C. A. 393 2023
12-18-2023
KYLE TIMCO, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ALLIED WORLD, ARIZONA RISK MANAGEMENT, AND MARICOPA RISK MANAGEMENT, Defendants Below, Appellees.
Submitted: December 5, 2023
Court Below-Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware C. A. No. 2023-0798
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
ABIGAIL M. LeGROW JUSTICE.
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant's response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Kyle Timco, filed this appeal from a Court of Chancery magistrate's order-dated August 4, 2023, and docketed August 7, 2023- dismissing Timco's complaint upon initial review under 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Timco to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a magistrate's order. In response to the notice to show cause, Timco argues the merits of his appeal but does not address this Court's jurisdiction.
(2) This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from a magistrate's decision. The appellant's right to review of the magistrate's order was to a judge in the Court of Chancery. Having failed to pursue that review, Timco waived his right to any further review or appeal.
Kalil v. Kalil, 2018 WL 1915123 (Del. Mar. 12, 2018).
In re Estate of Webb, 2011 WL 4838972 (Del. Oct. 12, 2011).
Id. (citing Del. Ct. Ch. R. 144).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).