Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Pinedo et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; SUMMARILY REMANDING TO MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT re 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Notice of Removal, filed by Gloria G Pinedo, Arthuro H PinedoREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Notice of Removal, filed by Gloria G Pinedo, Arthuro H Pinedo (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, v. Plaintiff, NO. C 09-03954 JW ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; SUMMARILY REMANDING TO MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT /

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

Arturo Pinedo, et al., Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Seeborg's Report and Recommendation filed on September 18, 2009.1 (hereafter, "Report," Docket Item No. 6.) To date, no party has filed an objection to Judge Seeborg's Report. 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

The Court notes that on October 1, 2009, Judge Seeborg filed a Notice re Report and Recommendation for Summary Remand stating that the Report correctly stated that the case was removed from Monterey Superior Court, but inadvertently stated that the matter should be remanded to Santa Clara Superior Court. (See Docket Item No. 8.) Judge Seeborg clarified that remand should be made to Monterey Superior Court. (Id.)

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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 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). In light of the fact that no objections have been filed, the Court adopts Judge Seeborg's Report without modification. Accordingly, the Court orders that the case be summarily remanded to Monterey Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall immediately remand this case to the Monterey Superior Court and close this file.

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 2 Dated: October 16, 2009 JAMES WARE United States District Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Edward A Treder [e-mail] Kent Jeffrey Schmidt [e-mail] Arthuro & Gloria Pinedo 585 Hamilton Avenue Seaside, CA 92955

Dated: October 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