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)

Download PDF
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-

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?