Benavidez et al v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 55

ORDER Adopting and Report and Recommendation to Approve Minors' Settlement [Doc. Nos. 52 , 54 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 3/2/2022. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JOHN BENAVIDEZ, HEATHER
BENAVIDEZ, J.C.B. a minor, and A.J.B.
a minor,

13
14
15
16

Case No.: 3:18-cv-0558-CAB-(AGS)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
MINORS’ SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al.,

[Doc. Nos. 52, 54]

Defendants.

17
18

Petitioners John and Heather Benavidez, parents of Plaintiffs J.C.B. and A.J.B., who

19

are minors, seek the Court’s approval of J.C.B.’s and A.J.B.’s interests in a settlement of

20

this action. [Doc. No. 52.] Their petition is unopposed. Magistrate Judge Andrew G.

21

Schopler has filed a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court approve the

22

settlement. [Doc. No. 54.] Judge Schopler’s R&R set a deadline of February 28, 2022, for

23

any objections to be filed. No objections were filed.

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district

25

court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district

26

court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s

27

findings and recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
1
3:18-cv-0558-CAB-(AGS)

1

Section 636 “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

2

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise. . . . Neither

3

the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and

4

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” United States v. Reyna-

5

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). “When no timely

6

objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of

7

the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s

8

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

9

Here, upon review of the petition for approval and supporting documents, along with

10

the entire record in this case, the Court is satisfied that approval of the settlement with

11

respect to the minor plaintiffs is warranted, and that there is no clear error on the face of

12

the record or in Judge Schopler’s R&R that the Court approve the settlement. Accordingly,

13

the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS the petition to approve J.C.B.’s and A.J.B.’s

14

interests in the settlement of this case. J.C.B.’s and A.J.B.’s shares of the settlement shall

15

be distributed as described in the petition [Doc. No. 52 at ¶ 17] and declaration of Plaintiffs’

16

counsel [Doc. No. 52-1 at ¶ 28].

17
18
19
20

It is further ORDERED that the parties shall jointly move to dismiss this case on or
before April 18, 2022.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2022

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:18-cv-0558-CAB-(AGS)