Nilon v. Natural-Immunogenics Corp et al

Filing 82

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 73 . Defendant's Motion for Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions 67 is denied. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 1/14/15.(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW NILON, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,,

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00930-LAB
(BGS)

12
Plaintiff,
13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

vs.

14
15

NATURAL-IMMUNOGENICS CORP.,
and DOES 1-25, Inclusive,,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Judge Skomal issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”) on Defendant

19

Natural Immunogenics’s motion for contempt and imposition of sanctions, recommending

20

that the motion be denied.

21

Objections to the R&R were due on November 14, 2014. To date, Defendant has not

22

filed objections, nor sought additional time in which to do so. Judge Skomal’s order warned

23

Defendant that "failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise

24

those objections on appeal of the Court’s Order." That is right. And in the typical case, the

25

failure to oppose an R&R is nearly cause for the Court to summarily adopt it. See, e.g., Kuss

26

v. Wright, 2013 WL 173000 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 2013); Coreno v. Armstrong, 2011

27

WL 4571754 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011); Bury v. Adams, 2006 WL 1832447 at *1 (E.D.

28

Cal. June 27, 2013).
-1-

1

A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and

2

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A magistrate judge's

3

determination of non-dispositive matters is entitled to deference unless it is clearly erroneous

4

or contrary to law. Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th

5

Cir.1991) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)). But “28 U.S.C. § 636,

6

which governs the jurisdiction and powers of magistrates, requires a magistrate to refer

7

contempt charges to a district court judge.” Id. at 240.

8

“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

9

disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. “A judge of the court may

10

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

11

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This section does not require some lesser review

12

by the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

13

(1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

14

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United

15

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

16

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with its rationale and

17

conclusions. The R&R is ADOPTED and Defendant’s motion for contempt and imposition

18

of sanctions is DENIED.

19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
DATED: January 14, 2015
21
22
23

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-