Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston

August 25, 2006

JERMAIN ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF
v.
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, ET AL. , DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge United States District Court

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 26), plaintiffs' objections (doc. no. 27) and defendants' response (doc. no. 30) and plaintiff's reply (doc. no. 33). The Magistrate Judge concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to the requests made in her Motion for Order of Relief for Judgment as a Matter of Law (doc. no. 20).

Plaintiff objects to the Judge's Report and Recommendation on the grounds that his conclusions are contrary to law.

In his Report, the Magistrate Judge set forth, in part, the following. Plaintiff initiated this action on May 20, 2005 by filing a pro se complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, against defendants Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston ("Liberty Life"), Heather Carignan, and Linda Laughlin for alleged breach of contract in connection with Plaintiff's failure to receive long-term disability benefits. (Doc. 2.)*fn1

This case is now before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for order of relief (doc. 20) and Defendant's memorandum contra (doc. 23).

Plaintiff's motion seeks reinstatement of her disability claim for long-term benefits, damages for emotional distress related to the alleged wrongful termination of benefits, and judgment in the amount of $39,200. Because Plaintiff is seeking judgment as a matter of law, her motion may be construed as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

A motion for summary judgment should be granted only if the evidence submitted to the Court demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party has the burden of showing the absence of genuine disputes over facts which, under the substantive law governing the issue, might affect the outcome of the action. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323. All facts and inferences must be construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that plaintiff's objections have either been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Judge or present no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this Court. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Judge.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 26). Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Relief (doc. 20) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The case is RECOMMITTED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings according to law.

IT IS SO ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.