Morales v. Omni Resorts Tucson National et al

Filing 30

ORDER ACCEPTING and ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 29 Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs action is dismissed for failure to prosecute. All other pending motions are denied as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 3/27/2018. (MCO)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Steve Morales,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00484-TUC-RCC (LAB)

Omni Resorts Tucson National, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution

16

(doc. 28) and a report and recommendation (“R & R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge

17

Leslie Bowman (doc. 29). For the following reasons, the Court shall adopt the R & R.

18

Discussion

19

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72

20

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

21

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or

22

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

24

Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a

25

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28

26

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection

27

is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d

28

992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22

1

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his

2

factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28

3

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great deference

4

by the district court.” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.

5

2001). A failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s

6

findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object

7

to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety

8

of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

9

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its

10

obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

11

2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ...

12

require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”);

13

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the

14

magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers

15

the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the

16

record, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R & R.

17

…

18

…

19

…

20

…

21

…

22

…

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and

3

Recommendation is accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law

4

by this Court. Doc. 29.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action is dismissed for failure to
prosecute.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the

9
10

case.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2018.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-