ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 17, 27)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendants D. Bailey, J. Burgos, D. Camargo, J. Diaz, S. Sandoval, and D. Uribe, Jr.'s ("Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Complaint, (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 17), and Magistrate Judge William McCurine's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") advising this Court to grant Defendants' motion and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend, (R&R, ECF No. 27).
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). In the absence of timely objection, however, 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, Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections to Magistrate Judge McCurine's R&R. Plaintiff's original deadline for filing his objections was October 14, 2013. On October 16, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time and re-set the deadline for filing objections to November 15, 2013. Although more than two months have elapsed since Magistrate Judge McCurine issued the R&R on September 23, 2013, Plaintiff has neglected to file any objections with the Court. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge McCurine's R&R, and (2) GRANTS Defendants' ...