Champion-Cain et al v. MacDonald et al

Filing 70

ORDER Adopting 69 Report and Recommendation in its Entirety and Denying Defendants Motion 67 for Leave to Amend the Counterclaim. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/15/15. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GINA CHAMPION-CAIN et al.,

Case No.: 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY

v.
BRIAN MACDONALD et al.,

[ECF No. 67]

Defendant.

15
16
17

On September 22, 2015, Defendants Luvsurf, Inc. and Brian MacDonald

18

(collectively “Defendants”) filed an ex parte motion to amend the case management order

19

and for leave to amend the counterclaim to substitute ROES. (ECF No. 67.) On September

20

25, 2015, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion. (Opp’n, ECF No. 68.) On October 6,

21

2015, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major denied Defendants’ motion to

22

amend the case management order and issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)

23

recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion for leave to amend the

24

counterclaim. (Report, ECF No. 69.) Judge Major ordered any objections to be filed no

25

later than October 13, 2015, and any replies filed no later than October 20, 2015. (Id. at

26

9.) To date, no objections have been filed and neither party has sought an extension to do

27

so.

28

//
1
14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

1

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report to which objections are

2

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

3

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he

4

statute makes it clear that the district court judge must review the magistrate judge’s

5

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

6

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original);

7

see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding

8

that where no objections were filed the district court had no obligation to review the

9

magistrate judge’s report.”). “Neither the Constitution not the statute requires a district

10

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept

11

as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall

12

v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.)

13

(adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the

14

report despite the opportunity to do so).

15

In the instant case, the deadline for filing objections was October 13, 2015. To date,

16

no objections have been filed and neither party has sought additional time. Consequently,

17

the Court may adopt the Report on that basis alone. See Rayna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

18

The Court nonetheless conducted a de novo review of Defendants’ motion to amend the

19

counterclaim (ECF No. 67), Plaintiffs’ opposition (ECF No. 68), and the Report (ECF No.

20

69). The Court finds that Defendants have failed to show good cause for untimely seeking

21

to amend the counterclaim to substitute ROES and allowing Defendants to do so would be

22

prejudicial to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the Report

23

in its entirety (ECF No. 69) and DENIES Defendants motion for leave to amend the

24

counterclaim. IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: October 15, 2015

26
27
28
2
14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM