Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. Wood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 26, 2010

GEORGE W. WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRIAN WOOD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND AWARDING DAMAGES

Plaintiff moved for default judgment against defendant Brian Wood ("Wood" or "defendant"). Default judgment was not requested against defendant Auto Acquisition, Inc. On November 18, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for default judgment finding that although default judgment was appropriate, plaintiff had failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing of the amount of money he contended was due and owing from defendant. Therefore, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for a prove-up hearing so that plaintiff could substantiate, with evidence, his entitlement to the damages requested.

The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 14, 2010 and requested supplemental briefing and documentation on three occasions from plaintiff. After fully considering these matters, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") on April 12, 2010 recommending a judgment in the amount of $238,033.39. Plaintiff was given until April 22, 2010 in which to file objections to the Report. He has not done so.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original).

In the absence of objections, the court ADOPTS in full the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to default judgment and awarded damages in the amount of $238,033.39 against defendant Brian Wood. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100426

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.