Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Canal Insurance Co. v. Pierce Transportation, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

July 7, 2014

CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
PIERCE TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILLIAM E. CASSADY, Magistrate Judge.

This cause is before the Magistrate Judge for issuance of a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), on the motion for dismissal of defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Doc. 31) and plaintiff's notice of consent (Doc. 35).

In its motion, Progressive avers that it "does not claim any of the proceeds being interpled by Canal Insurance Company, " and, indeed, "waives any right it may have as to any of the proceeds of the policy of insurance issued by Canal" in exchange for its dismissal from the case. (Doc. 31, at 2.) In response, plaintiff filed a notice of consent and therein states that it has "no objection to the dismissal of Progressive [Casualty] Insurance Company with prejudice." (Doc. 35 (emphasis in original).)

In light of the foregoing pleadings, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Progressive be DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court GRANT the motion for dismissal of defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Doc. 31) and DISMISS Progressive from this action WITH PREJUDICE.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, "the failure to object limits the scope of [] appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judge's factual findings. " Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.