REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Stipulation for Dismissal of Certain Defendants (Dkt. 4).1 This case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1.

Plaintiff initiated this case on July 22, 2019 against Defendants AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3, AT&T Southeast Disability Benefits Program, and Sedgwick. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff alleged a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Defendants arising out of their alleged refusal to provide him with disability insurance plan benefits. (Id.)

The parties now acknowledge that AT&T Southeast Disability Benefits Program and Sedgwick are not necessary parties to this action because the AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3 is the governing benefit plan, and the benefits provided under that Plan are not insured and AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3 will be responsible for payment of any benefits awarded for Plaintiff's claim, as well as interest and attorneys' fees, if any. (Dkt. 4, ¶ 2.) As such, the parties agree that all claims against AT&T Southeast Disability Benefits Program and Sedgwick should be dismissed without prejudice and without an award of fees or costs to any party. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Parties also request that Defendants AT&T Southeast Disability Benefits Program and Sedgwick be removed from the caption of this matter.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the files, records, the Parties' Stipulation, and proceedings herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants AT&T Southeast Disability Benefits Program, & Sedgwick be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without an award of fees or costs to any party; and

2. That Defendants AT&T Southeast Disability Benefits Program & Sedgwick be excluded from the caption of this matter in future pleadings.

NOTICE

This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), "a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy" of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in D. Minn. LR 72.2(c).