Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Cortney R. Cunningham and Katie A. Warlick

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil No. 4:26cv32

CORTNEY R. CUNNINGHAM and KATIE A. WARLICK,

Defendants.

FINAL ORDER Pending before the Court are a Motion for Default Judgment against Defend- ant Cortney R. Cunningham (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 18) and a Memorandum in Sup- port thereof (ECF No. 19) filed by Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Plaintiff” or “Travelers”). Therein, Plaintiff seeks default judgment declar- ing that Travelers was not required to provide insurance coverage under Travelers Policy No. 0CFZ84-601048735-830-1 (the “Policy”), for any defenses, damages, losses, or expenses incurred or suffered by Defendant Cortney R. Cunningham (“Ms. Cun- ningham”) as a result of or arising out the allision of her 2017 23’ Carolina Skiff, 23 Ultra Elite SS (Hull Identification Number: CSYX0103F717; Virginia Registration Number: VA6598CA) (the “Vessel”) with rocks in the vicinity of the Grandview Na- ture Preserve in Hampton, Virginia, on or about September 1, 2024. Mem. Supp. at 2, ECF No. 19. No responses were filed to the Motion. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and by order of reference dated June 26, 2026, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller (“Judge Miller”) for a report and recommendation (“R&R”).

Order, ECF No. 20. On July 22, 2026, Judge Miller filed an R&R wherein he recom- mended that the Motion be granted, and that default judgment be entered against Ms. Cunningham. R&R at 6, ECF No. 21. By copy of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file written objec- tions to the findings and recommendations made by Judge Miller within 14 days. Id. No party filed any objections. The Motion is therefore ripe for adjudication. When a

magistrate judge’s disposition has been properly objected to, the district judge must make de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “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 recommenda- tion.” Id. (advisory committee’s note on rules—1983).1 The Court has reviewed the Motion, the R&R, the record, and the governing law, and finds no clear error on the face of the record.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows: 1. The R&R (ECF No. 21) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

1 “The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the par- ties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review.” Berry v. Hunt, 13 F. App’x 148, 149 (4th Cir. 2001). As the parties were so warned, see R&R at 6, ECF No. 21, and did not file objections, appellate review of this Order has been waived. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. 3. Default Judgment is ENTERED against Ms. Cunningham. 4. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is not obligated under the Policy,

which Plaintiff issued to Ms. Cunningham, to insure the Vessel, to defend Ms. Cunningham against, nor indemnify Ms. Cunningham for, Defendant Katie A. Warlick’s claim, or for any claim that Ms. Cunningham may file on her own behalf, as a result of or arising out the Vessel’s allision with rocks in the vicin- ity of the Grandview Nature Preserve in Hampton, Virginia, on or about Sep- tember 1, 2024.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to please provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to Ms. Cunningham. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Arenda L. Wright Allen Senior United States District Judge

August 14, 2026 Norfolk, Virginia