Filed: Apr. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge. On March 20, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 21) in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), this Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge. On March 20, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 21) in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), this Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge.
On March 20, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 21) in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Moreover, this Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made." Id. In United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C):
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 objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, "to the extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless requested by the parties." Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939 (internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 ("Absent an objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding."); see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo review not required for Article III purposes unless requested by the parties). . . .
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). In this case, no objections were filed so the Court need not conduct a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation. The Court did, however, review the Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well-founded in the law based on the facts of this particular case.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 21) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in Part (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and her wage and hour law claim are DISMISSED.
