Jamison v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 3:2021cv00039 - Document 55 (D. Or. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R (ECF 53 ) as my own opinion. I GRANT Jaguar's cross-motion for summary judgment for lack subject matter jurisdiction (ECF 41 ) and dismiss Jamison's complaint without prejudice. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) and (c) and therefore dismiss Jaguar and LINA's crossclaims without prejudice. I deny Jamison's motion for trial on the administrative record (ECF 22 ) and Jaguar's motion to dismiss cross-claims (ECF 39 ) as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 6/02/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

Download PDF
Jamison v. Life Insurance Company of North America Case 3:21-cv-00039-YY Doc. 55 Document 55 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION SHAWN JAMISON, Plaintiff, V. LIFE INSURANCE c·oMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00039-YY OPINION & ORDER Cross Claimant, V. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Cross Defendant. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Cross Claimant, V. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Cross Defendant. 1 - OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-00039-YY Document 55 Filed 06/02/22 Page 2 of 3 MOSMAN,J., On May 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [ECF 53], recommending that I grant Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC's cross-motion for summary judgment [ECF 41]; that I dismiss crossclaims from Jaguar and Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and that I deny Plaintiff Shawn Jamison's motion for trial on the administrative record [ECF 22] and Jaguar's motion to dismiss cross-claims [ECF 39] as moot. Objections were due May 18, 2022, but none were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge You. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to mal(e a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 53] as my own opinion. I GRANT Jaguar's cross-motion for summary judgment for lack of 2 - OPINION & ORDER Case 3:21-cv-00039-YY Document 55 Filed 06/02/22 Page 3 of 3 subject matter jurisdiction [ECF 41] and dismiss Jamison's complaint without prejudice. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) and (c) and therefore dismiss Jaguar and LINA's crossclaims without prejudice. I deny Jamison's motion for trial on the administrative record [ECF 22] and Jaguar's motion to dismiss cross-claims [ECF 39] as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ZU.ay 3 - OPINION & ORDER ol~,it2.

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.