ORDER 1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 2) GRANTING REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND PARTIAL UNSEALING

Dkt. 21, 24

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, Senior District Judge.

On January 13, 2020, Relator Simrat Randhawa ("Relator") filed a Notice of Dismissal [Without Prejudice] and Request for Partial Unsealing, and [Proposed] Order Thereon in this qui tam action. Dkt. 21. Relator seeks to dismiss the action without prejudice to her rights or the rights of the United States. Id. The United States consents to the dismissal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). Id. It also requests that the Complaint, Summons, Case Scheduling Order, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and anticipated Court order dismissing the action, as well as any subsequent filings, be unsealed. Id.

On January 17, 2020, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a Report and Recommendation Regarding Request for Dismissal ("R&R"). Dkt. 24. Magistrate Judge Spero notes that, although Relator purports to file a "notice of dismissal," a Court order is required. Id. (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) ("The action may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting.")). Finding no reason to deny the request for dismissal without prejudice and partial unsealing, Magistrate Judge Spero recommends that the Court grant the same. However, because a magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to dismiss an action without the consent of all parties—including non-appearing defendants—Magistrate Judge Spero ordered that the action be reassigned to a district judge. The deadline to file objections to the R&R was January 31, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

On January 21, 2020, this Court issued an Order Regarding Request for Partial Unsealing ("Unsealing Order"), proposing to enlarge the scope of the unsealing beyond those filings identified by the United States. Dkt. 27. The Court identified the filings that would remain under seal and invited the parties to file any objection to the proposal by January 31, 2020. The Court advised that, absent any objection, the action would be unsealed in the manner described in the Unsealing Order. Id.

To date, the Court has received no objections to the R&R or the Unsealing Order. In the absence of a timely objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, "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 to 1983 amendment (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) (en banc) ("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."). The Court has reviewed the record and finds no clear error.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The R&R (Dkt. 24) is ADOPTED and the Notice of Dismissal and Request for Partial Unsealing (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED.

2. The action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the rights of Relator or the United State of America.

3. The Clerk shall UNSEAL the action and all filings, except the following:

The Clerk shall SEAL the filings identified above.

4. This Order terminates the action, and the Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.