Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01642/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01642-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441in Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1

18-CV-1642 W (AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERA LISICKY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-1642 W (AGS)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 25]; 

AND

(2) APPROVING MINOR’S 

COMPROMISE [DOC. 21]

This action arises from allegations against Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance 

Company (“USAA”) for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good 

faith and fair dealing. On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff Tera Lisicky was injured in an 

automobile-related accident while 31-weeks pregnant. Her insurance claim to USAA 

was denied, and this action followed. (R&R [Doc. 25] 1.)

On July 18, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Schopler issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court approve the minor’s 

compromise. (R&R [Doc. 25].) Judge Schopler ordered that any objections to the R&R

be filed by July 31, 2019. (See id. [Doc. 25] 3.) No objections were filed. There has

been no request for additional time to object.

Case 3:18-cv-01642-W-AGS Document 27 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-1642 W (AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) 

(concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to 

review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both the 

Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is 

made to the R & R[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 

F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review 

because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also

Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-01642-W-AGS Document 27 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-1642 W (AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In light of the foregoing, the Court accepts Judge Schopler’s recommendation and 

ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 25] in its entirety. 

Plaintiff’s Petition to Approve the Minor’s Compromise is GRANTED. 

[Doc. 21.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01642-W-AGS Document 27 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3