Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopts portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in an insurance coverage dispute. The Court denies Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation’s motion to strike and Keith L. Richards’ motion for summary judgment, and grants in part and denies in part Liberty’s motion for summary judgment concerning declaratory relief. The Court remands Liberty’s motions concerning preliminary and injunctive relief to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration based on Richards’ subsequent communications with Liberty’s counsel.
Holdings
- A district court must conduct de novo review of the portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific objections are made, while reviewing unobjected-to portions for clear error.
- The court found no clear error, adopted the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation, denied Liberty's motion to strike, denied Richards's motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Liberty's motion for summary judgment on its declaratory-relief claims.
- The court remanded Liberty's motion for preliminary injunction and its motion for summary judgment on injunctive-relief claims to the magistrate judge for further consideration.
Questions Presented
- What standard of review governs the district court's consideration of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation when specific objections are filed as to some portions but not others?
- Whether the court should adopt the unobjected-to recommendations denying Liberty's motion to strike, denying Richards's motion for summary judgment, and granting or denying portions of Liberty's motion for summary judgment on declaratory relief.
- Whether Liberty's motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment on its claims for injunctive relief should be remanded to the magistrate judge for further consideration in light of Richards's post-report communications.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (2)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976)(followed)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.