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.

Chrisman v. Verkoutern

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 20, 2013

RONALD CHRISMAN, Plaitniff,
v.
A VERKOUTERN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 37); AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS HICE AND SAMANIEGO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 32).

ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendants R. Hice and E. Samaniego's (collectively, "Defendants") motion for summary judgment.[1] (Doc. No. 32.) On May 10, 2013, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). The R&R recommended that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment in light of Plaintiff's deposition testimony that Defendants Hice and Samaniego were not present when Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted. The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than August 13, 2013, and replies no later than August 20, 2013. The Parties were further advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge 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 finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection(s), 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(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, despite being represented by counsel, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have filed timely objections to the R&R. Moreover, Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to Defen-dants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 34.) Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds the report is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL Magistrate Judge Dembin's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 37), and GRANTS Defendant Hice and Samaniego's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 32).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.