From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walters v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
Dec 18, 2007
No. 06-CV-20-LRR (N.D. Iowa Dec. 18, 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-CV-20-LRR.

December 18, 2007


ORDER


The matter before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Jon Stuart Scoles's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 48). The Report and Recommendation provides that, if either party objects to the proposed findings and recommendations, they are required to file objections with the court "within ten (10) days." Report and Recommendation (docket no. 48), at 33. Neither party filed timely objections.

The standard of review to be applied by the district court to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge is established by statute:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. . . .
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) (requiring de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendation on dispositive motions).

The court hereby ADOPTS the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (docket no. 48), REMANDS this matter to the plan administrator, in accordance with the Report and Recommendation, and DENIES the award of attorneys' fees to both parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Walters v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
Dec 18, 2007
No. 06-CV-20-LRR (N.D. Iowa Dec. 18, 2007)
Case details for

Walters v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

Case Details

Full title:ROGER WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

Date published: Dec 18, 2007

Citations

No. 06-CV-20-LRR (N.D. Iowa Dec. 18, 2007)

Citing Cases

Wattenhofer v. Target Corporation

Despite this change, the court determines that Abram remains binding Eighth Circuit precedent. See Lammers v.…