Emigh v. UCSF Medical Center

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG adopting Report and Recommendations as to 5 Report and Recommendations. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5

OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7

LAURIE J. EMIGH,

Case No: C 12-06533 SBA

8

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

vs.
Docket 5

10

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER,
11

Defendant.
12
13

On March 6, 2013, magistrate judge Elizabeth Laporte ("the magistrate") issued a

14

Report and Recommendation in which she recommends that this action be dismissed based

15

on Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

16

Dkt. 5. The Report and Recommendation states that "[b]ecause all parties have not

17

consented to this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Court issues this

18

Report and Recommendation and hereby reassigns the case to a district judge." Id. On

19

March 7, 2013, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. Dkt. 6.

20

Any objections to the magistrate's Report and Recommendation were required to be

21

filed within fourteen days of service thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b)(1)(C). The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of

23

the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,"

24

and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

25

made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

26

The deadline to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation was March 20,

27

2013. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To date,

28

no objections have been filed. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court "need only

1

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

2

recommendation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v.

3

U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

4

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ("The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear

5

that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de

6

novo if [an] objection is made, but not otherwise.") (en banc). The Court has reviewed the

7

record on its face and finds no clear error. Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the magistrate's Report and Recommendation

9

(Dkt. 5) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates

10
11
12

Docket 5. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/25/13

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

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

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
LAURIE J EMIGH,
5
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

v.
UCSF MEDICAL CENTER et al,
Defendant.
/

10
11

Case Number: CV12-06533 SBA

12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13
14
15
16
17
18

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on March 25, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

19
20
21
22
23

Laurie J Emigh
572 - 37th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121
Dated: March 25, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

24
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk
25
26
27
28
-3-