Summary
holding that plaintiff failed to support conclusory statements with factual allegations where he alleged that: the defendant used abusive tactics to settle the claim without specifying what the tactics were; the defendant failed to thoroughly investigate his claim without specifying what procedures it followed or how they were deficient; the defendant caused unreasonable delay without setting forth the dates of any actions; and the defendant failed to timely respond to inquiries without setting forth any facts about those inquiries or the defendant's responses
Summary of this case from Mittman v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-024
06-07-2013
LANDAN YOHN, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant
( ) ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab (Doc. 21), recommending that defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that "[w]hen 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." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that "the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court"); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court's review is conducted under the "plain error" standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court's review is limited to ascertaining whether there is "clear error on the face of the record"); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for "clear error"). The court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive. --------
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Schwab (Doc. 21) are ADOPTED.
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, which shall address the deficiencies set forth in Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation. Failure to file an amended complaint within the specified time period will result in the matter proceeding on only the remaining counts of the original complaint.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge