Case 2:11-cv-00546-RBS - Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Case 2:11-cv-00546-RBS -DEM Document 63 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID# 1561court should deny ILM's motion as to Bernsen's alleged breach ofthat clause. R&R 23-24. The magistrate judge furtherrecommended that the court grant ILM's motion on Bernsen's claimfor unjust enrichment and dismiss that claim. Id. By copy ofthe R&R, the parties were advised of their right to file writtenobjections thereto. On July 5, 2012, the court receivedPlaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Miller's June 20, 2012Report & Recommendation ("Bernsen's Objection"). ILM filed itsResponse on July 19, 2012.Pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, the court, having reviewed the record in itsentirety, shall make a de_ novo determination of those portionsof the R&R to which Bernsen has specifically objected. Fed. R.Civ. P. 72(b). The court may accept, reject, or modify, inwhole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge, orrecommit the matter to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1).The court, having examined Bernsen's Objection and havingmade de novo findings with respect thereto, sustains Bernsen'sObjection. Accordingly, the findings and recommendations setforth in the R&R are adopted in part and modified in part, andILM's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIEDIN PART. At a threshold level, however, in making thisdetermination on ILM's Motion for Summary Judgment, the court