Leigh Ann Fockele v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) LEIGH ANN FOCKELE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-039-CHB-EBA ) v. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND STATE FARM FIRE AND ) RECOMMENDATION CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Order & Report and Recommendation (“Report and Recommendation”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, [R. 85]. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the parties’ settlement agreement be enforced and the plaintiff’s motion in limine, [R. 40], be denied as moot. [R. 85, p. 10]. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge also ordered that several other motions be denied as moot, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike, [R. 50], be granted. [R. 85, p. 10]. Those matters were directly resolved by the Magistrate Judge and are not part of his recommended disposition; accordingly, those motions, [R. 33; R. 43; R. 50; R. 55; R. 63; R. 69; R. 76; R. 78; R. 79], are not presently before the Court.1 No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. This matter is therefore ripe for review. For the reasons outlined below, the Court will adopt the recommended disposition of the Magistrate Judge.

1 Regardless, even if such motions are subject to review by this Court, the Court has reviewed the substance of the Magistrate Judge’s decision and finds no error. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, many of these motions must be denied as moot in light of this Court’s ruling on the enforceability of the settlement agreement. [R. 85, p. 8].

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge first reviewed the factual and procedural background of this case, including the parties’ attendance at a private mediation at which they ultimately reached a resolution, and Plaintiff’s subsequent attempts to rescind her acceptance of that agreement. [R. 85, pp. 1–2]. The Magistrate Judge also explained that, at an evidentiary hearing, the parties did not dispute that they had entered into an agreement or the terms of that agreement. Id. at 8. Instead, as the parties agreed, “the decisive issue was whether an enforceable settlement agreement had been reached,” or in other words, “whether the settlement agreement was enforceable.” Id. at 3, 8. The parties were given a full and fair opportunity to brief that issue and did so. [R. 74]; [R. 81]. With that issue fully briefed, the Magistrate Judge considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that an enforceable settlement agreement had been reached. [R. 85, pp. 3–8]. As a result, the Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Improperly Disclosed Witnesses, [R. 40], be denied as moot.2 [R. 85, p. 10].

The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. [R. 85, p. 11]. The time to file objections has therefore passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation nor sought an extension of time to do so.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a

2 The Report and Recommendation does not reference the disputed testimony in its analysis of the enforceability of the settlement agreement. district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 85] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

2. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, [R. 40], is DENIED as moot.

3. The Court having been advised of an enforceable settlement agreement in this matter, see [R. 28]; [R. 85], in which the parties agree to dismiss the matter with prejudice, see [R. 28- 1], this matter is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket.

This the 7th day of January, 2026.

; oS Ta : .

J > a Lone yy Cwodoo One) ey ©" Mi CLARIAHORN 800M, Bevis UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE a ea EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF “a KENTUCKY -3-