Filed: Feb. 03, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2020
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT (Doc. Nos. 15, 25) ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant K. Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which was issued on August 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 25.) The R&R recommends that Defendant's motion be granted. ( Id.
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT (Doc. Nos. 15, 25) ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant K. Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which was issued on August 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 25.) The R&R recommends that Defendant's motion be granted. ( Id. a..
More
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
(Doc. Nos. 15, 25)
ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant K. Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which was issued on August 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 25.)
The R&R recommends that Defendant's motion be granted. (Id. at 10.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by September 13, 2019, and a reply to the objections no later than September 20, 2019. (Id.) Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file written objections. (Doc. No. 26.) The Court granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file written objections to the R&R by January 20, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than January 27, 2020. (Doc. No. 32.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . 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); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin's R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin's R&R in its entirety; and (2) GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
