ROBLES
v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment for GEICO because no reasonable jury could find bad faith.
Plaintiff's estate objected to a magistrate judge's report recommending summary judgment for GEICO on a bad faith claim. The magistrate found no reaso…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Amanda A. Sansone, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on September 29, 2020. (Doc. 142). Judge Sansone recommends that “GEICO Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 114) be granted because no reasonable jury could conclude that GEICO acted in bad faith when handling the claim. On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 147). On November 6, 2020, GEICO filed a response to the objection. (Doc. 150). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court
agrees with Judge Sansone’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. The report and recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the report and recommendation. Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the Estate, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could conclude that GEICO acted in bad faith when handling this claim. Consequently, GEICO’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation (Doc. 142) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
(2) “GEICO Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 114) is hereby GRANTED. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company, and against Plaintiff Linda J. Robles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Miguel A. Mercado, deceased, on Count I of the complaint. (2) Following the entry of judgment, the Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 9th day of November, 2020.
Yh G -TOMBARBER i (asssi(‘“‘i;it;™
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)