UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION

ESTATE OF JEFFREY K. ECKERT Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-2-RGJ-RSE

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant

* * * * *

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by the Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company to enforce settlement. [DE 47]. This motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl for report and recommendation. [DE 5] Judge Brennenstuhl held an evidentiary hearing on July 8, 2025, and entered his Report and Recommendation [DE 50] on July 11, 2025, recommending that the motion be denied and the case reinstated to the active docket, with the parties submitting a joint scheduling report within 10 days. Objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation were due no later than July 25, 2025. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No objections were filed and the time for doing so has passed. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. A district court may refer a motion to a magistrate judge for the preparation of a report and recommendation.

(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). “A magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings . . . [and] enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). This Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court need not review under a de novo or any other standard those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made and may adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Here, because no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, the Court may accept it without review. See Thomas,

. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted its own review of the record and finds no error in the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT ORDERED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl [DE 50], is ACCEPTED in whole and INCORPORATED by reference and Defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company’s motion to enforce settlement [DE 47] is DENIED, and this matter will be reinstated to the active docket. (2) The parties shall submit a joint scheduling report within 10 days of the entry of this order.

United States District Court December 4, 2025

ce: Counsel of Record