UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 12, 2011
MARK ROBERT POMERANCE,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. No. 13)
On November 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a report and recommendation advising the Court to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 13 (R&R).) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties 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 judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673--76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 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 in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
Neither party has timely objected to Magistrate Judge Major's report and recommendation.
(See R&R 4--5 (objections due by December 15, 2010).) Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's report and recommendation and (2) DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.