Filed: Sep. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company filed a motion for default judgment as to Defendant NBC General Contractors Corporation. Dkt. 154. On the same day, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ("the Magistrate") for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 155. On September 2, 2014, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommends granting Pla
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company filed a motion for default judgment as to Defendant NBC General Contractors Corporation. Dkt. 154. On the same day, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ("the Magistrate") for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 155. On September 2, 2014, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommends granting Plai..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company filed a motion for default judgment as to Defendant NBC General Contractors Corporation. Dkt. 154. On the same day, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ("the Magistrate") for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 155. On September 2, 2014, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommends granting Plaintiff's motion and entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $5,572,663.42. Dkt. 159.
Any objection to the report and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge must be filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 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)(C).
The deadline to object to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation was September 16, 2014. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1); Fed.R.Civv.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To date, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has beeen 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 Cammppbell 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. 159) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates Docket 154 and Docket 159.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
