United States District Court, S.D. California
SAMUEL K. PORTER, Plaintiff,
MUABE HOWARD, et al., Defendants.
(1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY; AND (2)
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF Nos. 150, 192]
CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.
On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff Samuel K. Porter, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, asserting civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 25, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that this Court: (1) approve and adopt the R&R; and (2) direct that judgment be entered granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on July 30, 2014. (R&R 6:15-17.) To date, neither party has filed any objections.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. But "[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 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R."); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.Supp.2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on July 30, 2014. However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of Defendants' motion to dismiss and the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Lewis' reasoning is sound and accurate in concluding that the motion to dismiss should be granted because the threshold issue that needs to be addressed violates the "law of the case doctrine." (R&R 3:21-6:6.) Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. CONCLUSION & ORDER
Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 192), and GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 150). The Clerk of ...