Dominguez et al v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER: (1) Adopting 22 Report and Recommendation; and (2) Approving Minor's Compromise re 16 . Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 10/8/2019. (jao)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
SANTOS DOMINGUEZ, III, et al.,
Case No.: 18-CV-2872 W (KSC)
Plaintiffs,
9
10
v.
11
ORDER:
HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. AND
DOES 1-20,
12
13
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22];
AND
Defendants.
(2) APPROVING MINOR’S
COMPROMISE [DOC. 16]
14
15
16
On November 13, 2018, Plaintiff Santos Dominguez, III, by and through his parent
17
and Guardian Ad Litem, Veronica Dominguez, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
18
California, County of San Diego, North County Division. [Doc. 1-2.] Hobby Lobby
19
removed the matter to this Court on December 21, 2018. [Doc. 1.] Hobby Lobby
20
answered the complaint on March 15, 2019. [Doc. 6.]
21
On June 13, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major was randomly
22
assigned to handle the Minor’s Compromise. [Doc. 10.] Judge Major issued a Report
23
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court approve the minor’s
24
compromise. (R&R [Doc. 22].) Judge Major further ordered that any objections to the
25
R&R be filed by October 7, 2019. (See id. [Doc. 22] 3.) No objections were filed. There
26
has been no request for additional time to object.
27
28
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
1
18-CV-2872 W (KSC)
1
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are
2
filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and
3
recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)
4
(reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must
5
review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made,
6
but not otherwise”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)
7
(concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to
8
review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both the
9
Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.
10
2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is
11
made to the R & R[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395
12
F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review
13
because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also
14
Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
15
16
17
18
In light of the foregoing, the Court accepts Judge Major’s recommendation and
ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 22] in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s Petition to Approve the Minor’s Compromise is GRANTED.
[Doc. 16.]
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated: October 8, 2019
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
18-CV-2872 W (KSC)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?