IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

TAMARA BARNHART, CV 21-09-BLG-SPW Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant, ORDER ADOPTING vs. MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counter -Claimant.

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan’s Findings and Recommendations, filed on January 27, 2023. (Doc. 43). Judge Cavan recommends this Court grant Defendant/Counter-Claimant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and deny Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tamara Barnhart’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 31). After reviewing the filed objections and Defendant’s

response (Docs. 44, 46), the Court adopts Judge Cavan’s Findings and Recommendations in full. I. Standard of Review Pursuant to

(b)(1), the parties were required to file written

objections within 14 days of the filing of the Findings and Recommendations. The

parties are entitled to a de novo review of those findings to which they have

“properly objected.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also

(b)(1). The

portions of the findings and recommendations not properly objected to are

reviewed for clear error. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus.

Mach., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax,

(9th Cir. 2000). A proper objection “identiffies] the parts of the magistrate’s disposition that

the party finds objectionable and present[s] legal argument and supporting authority, such that the district court is able to identify the issues and the reasons supporting a contrary result.” Mont. Shooting Sports Ass’n v. Holder, No. CV 09- 147-M-DWM-JCL,

, at *2 (D. Mont. Oct. 18, 2010). “It is not sufficient for the objecting party to merely restate arguments made before the magistrate or to incorporate those arguments by reference.” Jd. Il. Analysis Plaintiff lodges four objections to Judge Cavan’s findings and recommendations. (See Doc. 44). However, none are proper because they are simply copied and pasted from her Combined Response/Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38) filed before Judge Cavan. (Cf

and

Doc. 44). The only changes Plaintiff made were to replace her references to

Defendant with Judge Cavan. Since Plaintiff merely restates the arguments she

made to Judge Cavan, the Court overrules her objections and reviews the Findings and Recommendations for clear error. After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not

find Judge Cavan committed clear error. III. Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 43) are ADOPTED IN FULL.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Counter-Claimant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is

GRANTED, and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tamara Barnhart’s Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this matter.

DATED this MBday of February, 2023.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge