Brantley et al v. Maxwell-Jolly et al

Filing 585

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 522 Motion to Enforce Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations as to 583 Report and Recommendations. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5

ESTHER DARLING, et al.,

Case No: C 09-3798 SBA

6

Plaintiffs,
7

vs.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

TOBY DOUGLAS, Director of the

Dkt. 522, 583

9 Department of Health Care Services, et al.,
10

Defendants.

11
12
13

The Court previously referred Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement of Stipulated

14

Judgment and for Appointment of Special Master (Dkt. 522) to Magistrate Judge

15

Jacqueline Corley (“the Magistrate”) for findings and recommendations. Dkt. 460. On

16

November 20, 2012, the Magistrate issued her report and recommendation in which she

17

recommended denying Plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. 583, 584.

18

Any objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days

19

of receipt thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Civ. L.R. 72-2, 72-3. The

20

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which

21

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

22

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Civ. L.R.

23

72-3(a) (requiring that any objections be accompanied by a motion for de novo

24

determination).

25

The deadline to file an objection to the report and recommendation was December 4,

26

2012. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed in this

27

case. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is

28

no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R.

1

Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501

2

F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

3

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district

4

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an]

5

objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its

6

face and finds no clear error. Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate’s report and recommendation is

8

ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement

9

of Stipulated Judgment and for Appointment of Special Master to Magistrate Judge is

10
11
12

therefore DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 522 and 583.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2013

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-