Gann Properties, L.P. et al v. Coats et al

Filing 26

ORDER ACCEPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO 6 REMAND ACTION. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 10/21/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OAKLAND DIVISION 6 7 8 GANN PROPERTIES, LP, Plaintiff, 9 10 vs. Case No: C 13-3718 SBA ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND ACTION 11 JUDAN COATES; et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On October 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero issued a report and 16 recommendation in which he recommended granting Plaintiff’s motion to remand, but 17 denying its request for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 20. Any objections to a report and 18 recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Civ. L.R. 72-2, 72-3. The district court must “make a de 20 novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “may 21 accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 22 magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Civ. L.R. 72-3(a) (requiring that any 23 objections be accompanied by a motion for de novo determination). 24 The deadline to file an objection to the report and recommendation was October 17, 25 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), 72(b). To date, no objections have been filed in this 26 case. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is 27 no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 1 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 2 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district 3 judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an] 4 objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its 5 face and finds no clear error. Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the magistrate judge’s report and 7 recommendation (Docket 20) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. 8 Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for fees is DENIED. 9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Clerk shall remand the action to the Contra Costa 10 11 12 County Superior Court, terminate any pending matters and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 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?