ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND ACTION
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
On October 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended granting Plaintiff's motion to remand, but denying its request for attorneys' fees. Dkt. 20. Any objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Civ. L.R. 72-2, 72-3. 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 Civ. L.R. 72-3(a) (requiring that any objections be accompanied by a motion for de novo determination).
The deadline to file an objection to the report and recommendation was October 17, 2013. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1), 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed in this case. In the absence of a 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 Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court , 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ("The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if [an] objection is made, but not otherwise.") (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and finds no clear error. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Docket 20) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request for fees is DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Clerk shall remand the action to the Contra ...