UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________ NANCY M. MUIR, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph L. Muir

Plaintiff, 16-CV-89A(Sr)

v.

LAMORAK INSURANCE COMPANY, Formerly known as One Beacon Insurance Company;

RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT, INC.;

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY (CNA);

PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Formerly known as Seaton Insurance Group;

HARPER INSURANCE LIMITED;

and

ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI, SPA;

Defendants. ____________________________________

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. pursuant to

(b)(1) for the performance of pretrial proceedings. On February 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Schroeder issued a Report, Recommendation and Order (“RR&O”) (Dkt. No. 135) recommending that plaintiff Muir’s motion (Dkt. No. 84) for leave to settle her claims against defendants Harper and Generali for $75,250, and for dismissal of such claims with prejudice be granted. Magistrate Judge Schroeder further recommended that Plaintiff’s (Dkt. No. 89) motion to dismiss defendant Seaton Insurance Company with prejudice be granted.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to” (emphasis added). Here, no objections to the RR&O have been filed. “When no timely objection is filed, the [C]ourt need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” 1983 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Patton v. Ford Motor Co., 14-CV-0308-RJA-HBS,

,

, *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2017) (same). The Court finds no clear error with respect to Magistrate Judge Schroeder’s RR&O, and therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to

(b)(1) and for the reasons set forth in the RR&O, that plaintiff Muir’s motion (Dkt. No. 84) for leave to settle her claims against defendants Harper and Generali for $75,250 and to dismiss such

claims with prejudice is granted, and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s (Dkt. No. 89) motion to dismiss defendant Seaton Insurance Company with prejudice is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Richard J. Arcara HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dated: April 8, 2025 Buffalo, New York