Evanston Ins. Co. v. Elaine Reeves Constr., Inc.

Full title: EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, v. ELAINE REEVES CONSTRUCTION, INC…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 20, 2017

Case No. 1:17-cv-314-WKW-DAB (M.D. Ala. Nov. 20, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 1:17-cv-314-WKW-DAB

11-20-2017

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, v. ELAINE REEVES CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al. Defendants.

David A. Baker United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the motion (Doc. No. 31) of Plaintiff to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of mootness, due to resolution of the underlying tort action. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 32) why the motion ought not be granted. The Greenwell Defendants filed a Response (Doc. No. 33) indicating no objection, and the Reeves Defendants have failed to respond, which the Court deems a lack of opposition. It appears from these filings that the dispute between the parties is no longer an active controversy, and the case is subject to dismissal.

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, that the case be dismissed without prejudice (all parties to bear their own costs) and that the Clerk be directed to close the docket.

It is ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before December 4, 2017. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED, this 20th day of November, 2017.

/s/_________

David A. Baker

United States Magistrate Judge