HAMILTON v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY et al, No. 2:2020cv00285 - Document 7 (D. Me. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 5 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (aks)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HAMILTON v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:20-cv-00285-JDL ) ) ) ) ) ) DOMINIQUE HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 6, 2020, Dominique Hamilton filed a complaint against State Farm Insurance Company 1 and Marisa Brown (ECF No. 1), along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West 2020), United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison conducted a preliminary review of the complaint. Following his review, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommended Decision on August 12, 2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2020) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Hamilton’s claim (ECF No. 5). This case was docketed as “Dominique Hamilton v. State Farm and Casualty Company, et al.” and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommended Decision issued with this name in the caption. See ECF No. 5. However, Hamilton’s complaint names “State Farm Insurance Company” as a defendant as opposed to “State Farm and Casualty Company. See ECF No. 1 at 1-2, 4. Accordingly, I have captioned this Order with the proper name. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party’s failure to object within fourteen days of service would waive the right to de novo review and appeal. ECF No. 5. I have reviewed and considered the Report and Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Report and Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 5) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and the complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 22nd day of October, 2020. /s/ Jon D. Levy CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
