Ricks v. Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STEVE RICKS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-2844

IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY SECTION “R” (5) INSURANCE COMPANY

ORDER Plaintiff Steve Ricks filed this lawsuit against defendant Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company in July 2023.1 Chief Magistrate Judge Michael North issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommends that the Court issue a 60-day order of dismissal because the case has been settled between the parties.2 No party objected to the R&R. The Court thus reviews the R&R for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When 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.”). The Court finds no clear error. Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R as its opinion.

1 R. Doc. 1. 2 R. Doc. 51. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed as to all parties, without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown, within sixty days, to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. In addition, the Court specifically retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if settlement is not consummated in sixty days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994); Hospitality House, Inc. v. Gilbert, 298 F.3d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 2002). COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT, IF WITNESSES HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED, EVERY WITNESS MUST BE NOTIFIED BY COUNSEL NOT TO APPEAR.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _23rd__ day of April, 2024. bern Varver SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE