Watson v. Americo Financial Life and Annuity Ins. Co.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

TERRICA WATSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00040-CHB ) v. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ) JUDGE’S REPORT AND ANNUITY INSURANCE CO., ) RECOMMENDATION ) Defendant. )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay, [R. 19]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Parties’ Agreed Motion to Approve Settlement, [R. 12], as supplemented by [R. 18], in which the Parties seek approval of the settlement of all of the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, [R. 12, p. 1]. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lindsay detailed the facts supporting approval of the parties’ settlement, [R. 19, pp. 1–2], and acknowledged the relevant considerations for “cases involving legal claims brought by minors in a federal” court, using Green v. Nevers, 111 F.3d 1295, 1301 (6th Cir. 1997). Id. at 2. The Magistrate Judge ultimately recommended that the Parties’ Agreed Motion to Approve Settlement be granted and the settlement be approved. Id. at 6. In reaching this conclusion, the Magistrate Judge found that there was no evidence of “fraud, collusion, or any other kind of bad faith that might cause the undersigned concern that” the minor would not receive a fair settlement, id. at 4; that the payment of a 40% contingency fee to Plaintiff’s counsel is “fair and reasonable,” id. at 4; and that the “purchase of the annuity detailed in the motion is appropriate.” Id. at 4. Ultimately, the Magistrate Judge, “mak[ing] an independent determination,” deemed the proposed settlement to be “in the minor’s best interest” under Green. Id. at 2, 6. Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days. Id. at 6. The time to file objections has

passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation nor sought an extension of time to do so. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 19] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. The Parties’ Agreed Motion to Approve Settlement [R. 12], as supplemented by [R. 18], is GRANTED; 3. The settlement is APPROVED; 4. A corresponding Judgment will follow. This the 13th day of September, 2024. Se. ee 9 Mie CLARIAHORN Boom, Te ee © UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Snumey——s:EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF Wea" = KENTUCKY