Ward v. Life Care Centers of America Incorporated
Filing
70
ORDERED: Magistrate Judge Rateau's 69 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. Defendant's 64 Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is awarded attorneys fees in the amount of 3,452.85. This case is to remain CLOSED. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 1/25/2019. (BAR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
Bill Ward,
No. CV-16-00741-TUC-RCC
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
13
ORDER
Life Care Centers of America,
14
Defendant.
15
16
Pending before Defendant Life Care Center of America, Inc.’s unopposed Motion
17
for Award of Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 64) and Magistrate Judge Rateau’s January 4, 2019
18
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant in part and
19
deny in part the motion (Doc. 69). Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R & R as the findings of
20
21
fact and conclusions of law of this Court.
22
I.
Background
The factual and procedural background of this matter are thoroughly detailed in
23
24
the R&R. The Court fully incorporates by reference this section of the R&R.
25
II.
Discussion
26
The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72
27
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thereunder the
28
district court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
1
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
2
72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3
Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a
4
de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28
5
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection
6
is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d
7
992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22
8
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
9
deference by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.
10
2001). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s recommendation unless his factual
11
findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
12
636(b)(1)(A).
“[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great
13
Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its
14
obligation to review either the factual findings or legal conclusions de novo. See United
15
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
16
140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any review at all ... of any
17
issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge
18
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been
19
properly objected to.”).
20
Having independently reviewed the motion, controlling caselaw and record in this
21
matter, this Court finds the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. The Court will
22
accept adopt the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly,
23
…
24
…
25
…
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Magistrate Judge Rateau’s R&R (Doc. 69) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court;
-2-
1
2.
2
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3
amount of $3,452.85.
4
3.
5
Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 64) is GRANTED IN
Defendant is awarded attorney’s fees in the
This case is to remain CLOSED.
Dated this 25th day of January, 2019.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?