Narez et al v. NDEx West, LLC. et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge James Ware terminating 5 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendation 16 ; Dismissing without prejudice. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reyna Narez, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 09-00090 JW ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE / United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NDEX West, LLC, et al., Defendants. Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Lloyd recommending dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (Order that Case be Reassigned to a District Court Judge, Report and Recommendation, hereafter, "Recommendation," Docket Item No. 16.) The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Any party may serve and file specific written objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within ten (10) working days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 72-3. When the parties object to a report and recommendation, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation ] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); see United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the report and recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). To date, no objection to Judge Lloyd's recommendation has been filed. Upon review of the recommendation and the procedural history in this matter, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lloyd's report and recommendation and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of prosecution without prejudice. Each party shall bear their own fees and costs. The Clerk shall close this file. Dated: June 16, 2009 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California JAMES WARE United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: John M. Sorich jsorich@adorno.com Mitchell W. Roth fedfilings@mwroth.com Sung-Min Christopher Yoo cyoo@adorno.com Dated: June 16, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?