AND NOW, this 20th day of January, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 75), to which defendants J. Robert Katherman, Katherman, Heim & Perry, and Dominion Abstracting (collectively, the "Katherman defendants") have filed objections,*fn1 (see Doc. 76), and which recommends that the Katherman defendants' motion (Doc. 45) for summary judgment be denied, and that the motion (Doc. 46) for summary judgment filed by third-party defendant Henry William Seay ("Seay") also be denied, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that the magistrate judge identified numerous unresolved factual disputes, and that disagreements over genuine issues of material fact are not to be decided on a Rule 56 motion, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986) (explaining that evidence which presents a sufficient disagreement requires submission to a jury), and it further appearing that plaintiff's evidence presents a plausible claim to relief,*fn2 and that it is not "material[ly] self-contradictory," as the Katherman defendants contend,*fn3 (see Doc. 76 at 6), and the court noting that Seay has not objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny his motion (Doc. 46) for summary judgment, and that with respect to Seay's motion (Doc. 46), there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn4 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
2. The motion (Doc. 45) for summary judgment, filed by defendants J. Robert Katherman, Katherman, Heim & Perry, and Dominion Abstracting, is DENIED. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).