UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 16, 2010
OBIE STEVEN ANTHONY, PLAINTIFF,
LEW, MATTHEW CATE, LARRY SMALL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. Nos. 30 & 33)
Presently before the Court are Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 30) and Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks's Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted. (Doc. No. 33.) Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. "The district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court need "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation. Moreover, according to Judge Brooks, "Plaintiff stated that he had no objection to Defendants' Motion and also agreed to dismiss both [Defendant] Cate and [Defendant] Small." (Doc. No. 33 at 1.) Therefore the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES Defendants Cate and Small.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.