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.

Eusse v. Vitela

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 10, 2014

JAMES EUSSE, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
MARCO VITELA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Docket Nos. 18, 21, 23]

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

On February 28, 2014, Defendants E. Duarte, M. Carpio, R. Nelson, G. Janda, M. Whitman, and M. Vitela filed a motion to dismiss portions of Plaintiff James Eusse, Jr.'s First Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 18.) On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Docket No. 21.) On June 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Court grant Plaintiff James Eusse, Jr.'s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and deny Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. (Docket No.23.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due June 24, 2014. ( Id. ) Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 7Z(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). "The district judge must determine de novo any, part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to.", FED. R.CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 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); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Stormes' Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED, and Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint on or before July 25, 2014.

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.