The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 20, 31)
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Rosie Preciado's ("Plaintiff") motion for summary judgment, (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 20), and Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks's report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion, (R&R, ECF No. 31).
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 R&R. 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)).
Here, Magistrate Judge Brooks directed the parties to file any objections to the R&R on or before December 6, 2011. (R&R 4, ECF No. 31) Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections.*fn1
Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks's R&R and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.