UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 18, 2012
G.J. GIURBINO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez United States District Judge
1. ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; [Doc No. 67]
2. DENYING MOTION FOR
[Doc. No. 44]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks's Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), [Doc. No. 67], recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, [Doc. No. 44]. The deadline for filing objections thereto passed October 19, 2012. [See Doc. No. 67 at 40.]
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which objections are 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). However, "[t]he 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 original). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id.
Here, the deadline for objections passed over a month ago without any objections being filed, and thus the Court may adopt the R & R on that basis alone. See id. Having reviewed and finding sound Magistrate Judge Brooks's R & R, the Court approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thus, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.