The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDade United States District Judge
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore's Report and Recommendation ("R & R") [Doc. #98], which addresses Defendants, Justyn Webster and Virginia Webster-Smith's ("Webster's estate") Motion to Intervene [Doc. #91] in the third-party suit filed by Pontiac Flying Services Inc., ("Pontiac") against Hardy Aviation Insurance ("Hardy"). For the reasons that follow, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Cudmore's R & R.
In September 2003, National Union Fire Company of Pittsburgh ("National Union") initiated this case against Pontiac, seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to indemnify Pontiac for the loss of its aircraft -- the Air Tractor 503 --which crashed in May 2003, killing both instructor pilot Richard Lucente and student pilot Neil Webster. See [Doc. #86]. Pontiac responded in part by filing a third-party complaint against insurance broker Hardy, for failing to procure both property and liability insurance to cover the incident. See [Doc. #8]
In April 2004, Webster's estate filed negligence claims in state court against Pontiac and others. This prompted National Union, in June 2004, to add Webster's and Lucente's Estates as defendants to the action against Pontiac, and to seek a declaration that National Union owed no duty to indemnify or defend against Webster's state court claims.
Later, on August 19, 2005, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of National Union, holding that National Union had no duty to indemnify or defend Pontiac for loss of the aircraft or for Webster's claims. That ruling left only one claim in this case -- Pontiac's third-party claim against Hardy for failing to procure insurance coverage.
Finally, on October 4, 2005, Webster's estate filed the instant Motion to Intervene, seeking "to recover damages for the agent's failure to provide liability coverage under the National Union aerial application policy."
After reviewing the record, Magistrate Judge Cudmore concluded that Webster's estate had not fulfilled all of the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically, the requirement that Webster show that his interest could not be adequately represented by Pontiac. Magistrate Judge Cudmore further concluded that while Webster would most likely be able to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b), he failed to show his motion was timely, which is required under both Rule 24(a) and 24(b). Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Cudmore recommended that the Motion to Intervene filed by Webster's estate be denied.
Webster, in turn, has filed timely written objections to Magistrate Judge Cudmore's R & R.
Within ten working days after being served with a copy of a magistrate judge's R & R, any party to the action may serve and file written objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, as the Seventh Circuit has pointed out, Rule 72(b) contemplates "written, specific objections" to the report and recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Therefore, a district court reviews de novo only "those portions of the magistrate judge's [proposed findings and recommendations] to which specific written objection is made." Id. In doing so, the district judge should "give fresh consideration to those issues" by "consider[ing] the record which has been developed before the magistrate and mak[ing] his own determination on the basis of that record, without being bound to adopt the findings and conclusions of the magistrate." United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980). In other words, "[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. at 674 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions of the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations for clear error. Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. As a result, failure to timely object in the district court constitutes a waiver of any objection on ...