United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
January 30, 2015
JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO; CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC; BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST, LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Docket No. 210, 222
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney Fees' and Costs Under the FLSA. Dkt. 210. On September 18, 2014, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ("the Magistrate") for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 213. On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends granting Plaintiffs' motion and awarding $113, 120.00 in attorneys' fees and $15, 366.75 in costs. Dkt. 222.
Any objections to the report and recommendation of a Magistrate judge must be filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The deadline to object to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation was January 27, 2015. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. 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's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 222) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates Docket 210 and Docket 222.
IT IS SO ORDERED.