United States District Court, D. Idaho
J. Lodge United States District Judge
March 22, 2017, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Ronald
E. Bush issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), recommending that Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in
part. (Dkt. 40.) Any party may challenge a magistrate
judge's proposed recommendation by filing written
objections to the Report within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the same. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule 72.1(b). The district
court must then “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”
Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify
in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by
the magistrate judge. Id.; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). No objections were filed. The matter is ripe
for the Court's consideration. See Local Civil
Rule 72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this
Court “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report which objection is made.”
Id. Where, however, no objections are filed the
district court need not conduct a de novo review. In
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear
that the district judge must review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection
is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court
instructed, “to the extent de novo review is required
to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised
unless requested by the parties.” Peretz, 501
U.S. at 939 (internal citation omitted). Neither the
Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi,
77 F.3d at 1251 (“Absent an objection or request for
review by the defendant, the district court was not required
to engage in any more formal review of the plea
proceeding.”); see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at
937-39 (clarifying that de novo review not required for
Article III purposes unless requested by the parties) . . . .
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 &
n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, to the extent that no
objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(objections are waived if they are not filed within fourteen
days of service of the Report and Recommendation).
“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.”
Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing
Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196,
206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
Court has reviewed the entire Report as well as the record in
this matter for clear error on the face of the record and
none has been found.
full procedural background and facts of this case are well
articulated in the Report and the Court incorporates the same
in this Order. (Dkt. 40.) The Plaintiffs', Mr. Michael
Botai and Mrs. Jennifer Botai, brought suit against Defendant
Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (“Safeco”)
for breach of contract, negligence, and intentional bad
faith. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1.)
Report concluded Safeco's total payment under the
Plaintiffs' insurance policy precludes Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim. (Dkt. 40.) This Court agrees with
the Report in this regard and will adopt the same.
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim alleged nonpayment
by Safeco under their policy. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1.) After the
complaint was filed, under the terms of the policy an
appraisal process took place and Safeco subsequently made a
third payment to Plaintiffs to equal a total payment of $40,
727.88, the appraised amount of loss. (Dkt. 40.) With such
payment in full, the breach of contract was cured and there
is no longer a basis for the claim. This Court adopts the
Report's analysis, discussion, and conclusion regarding
the granting of Safeco's Motion for Summary Judgment on
the breach of contract claim.
Report also concluded Safeco had a duty to act in good faith
in processing and adjusting Plaintiffs' claim under the
policy, but material issues of fact exist as to whether
Safeco breached that duty precluding summary judgment on the
intentional bad faith claim. (Dkt. 40.) This Court agrees
with the Report in this regard and will adopt the same.
Viewing the facts in favor of the non-moving party, the
Report concluded it is possible Safeco breached its duty and
did so in bad faith. This Court adopts the Report's
analysis, discussion, and conclusion regarding the denial of
Safeco's Motion for Summary Judgment on the intentional
bad faith claim.
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on March 22, 2017 (Dkt. 40) is ADOPTED
IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 25) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed herein. The
case remains set for trial on Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:30
a.m. in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. (Dkt. 24.) The ...