Carroll et al v. Hubka Sparhawk et al

Filing 26

ORDER: (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 25 ; and (2) Granting Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Claim of Minors [Doc. No. 23 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 2/20/2019. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Michael Carroll, et al.

Case No.: 17cv2020-CAB-AGS
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.
No. 25]; AND (2) GRANTING
MOTION FOR ORDER
APPROVING COMPROMISE OF
CLAIM OF MINORS [Doc. No. 23]

Cheri L. Hubka Sparhawk, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On January 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for order approving compromise of
claim of minors. [Doc. No. 23.] On January 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Andrew G.
Schopler prepared a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the
motion for order approving compromise of claim of minors be granted. [Doc. No. 25.]
The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by February 14, 2019.
[Report at 2.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor have there been any requests for
an extension of time in which to file an objection.
A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the
Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are
filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

28
1
17cv2020-CAB-AGS

1

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and

2

Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may

3

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

4

the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge

5

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is

6

made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

7

Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute

8

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

9

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, the Court

10

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

11

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

12

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

13

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it,

14

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.

15

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s Report and

16

Recommendation; and (2) GRANTS the motion for order approving compromise of

17

claim of minors.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv2020-CAB-AGS