United States District Court, D. Arizona
C. Collins Chief United States District Judge
February 6, 2017 the Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro, United
States Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) in this action. Doc. 561-1. The
R&R recommends this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment re: Disability (Doc. 421) and deny
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.
461). Id. at 17.
parties did not object to the recommendation that this Court
deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Disability (Doc. 421). Defendants did file timely objections
to the recommendation that this Court deny their Motion for
Partial Summary Judgement (Doc. 461). Doc. 567. Plaintiff
filed timely responses to Defendants' objections. Doc.
Court has considered all of the foregoing circumstances and
pleadings, as well as the parties' underlying briefs. As
to the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Doc. 421), the Court will adopt Judge Ferraro's findings
of fact and conclusions of law and will deny the motion. As
to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.
461), the Court will adopt Judge Ferraro's findings of
fact and conclusions of law and will deny the motion
OF REVIEW AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT STANDARD
duties of the district court in connection with a R & R
are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court
may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court
will not disturb a magistrate judge's order unless his
factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal
conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge's
decision…is entitled to great deference by the
district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257
F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001).
the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the
[district] court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the [R & R] to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection is
filed, the district court need not review the R & R de
novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13
(9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also,
Arn, 474 U.S. at 149 (“[Section 636(b)(1) ]
does not ... require any review at all ... of any issue that
is not the subject of an objection.”).
motion for summary judgment may be granted only where there
is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and ...
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, (1986). When assessing the
record to make this determination, the “evidence of the
non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences
are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,
158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)). Courts
recognize that “[c]redibility determinations, the
weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a
judge....” Id. at 255.
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding
the parties have not objected to the portions of the R&R
addressing Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Regarding his Disability Status. As such the Court
is relieved of its obligation to review the same. See
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, this
Court has reviewed the record de novo in conjunction with the
R&R's recommended disposition of the motion. This
Court considers the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned
on this issue. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the
R&R's findings of fact and conclusions of law (Doc.
561-1, in part) and will DENY
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding
Plaintiff's Claims of Bad Faith and Punitive
categorize their objections to the R&R as follows:
Defendants respectfully submit the R&R misapplied the
… law to the undisputed facts in reaching the
conclusion that the bad faith and punitive damage claims
should go to the jury. The facts of the claim handling are
undisputed and documented in Defendants' claim file.
Plaintiff argued inferences of unreasonable conduct based on
these undisputed facts. The R&R ...