Sky Star Moon and Universe Trust et al v. HSBC Bank USA et al

Filing 107

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 105 Report and Recommendations, granting 60 Motion to Dismiss filed by Land American Transnation; and all claims made by pla's Fritts and Burton are dismissed for failurte to prosecute. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

SKY STAR MOON AND UNIVERSE TRUST,
et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HSBC BANK USA, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) Case No. CV10-234-S-EJL
)
) ORDER ON REPORT
) AND RECOMMENDATION
)
)
)
)

On August 10, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a Report
and Recommendation (Docket No. 105) in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and
Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Moreover, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
which objection is made.” Id. In United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, “to the
extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be
exercised unless requested by the parties.” Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939 (internal
citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district
judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties
themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 (“Absent an
objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not
required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding.”); see
also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo review not required for
Article III purposes unless requested by the parties) . . . .
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- Page 1
11ORDERS\sky_2rnr.WPD

See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). In this case, no
objections were filed so the Court need not conduct a de novo determination of the Report
and Recommendation. The Court did, however, review the Report and Recommendation and
the record in this matter and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well-founded in the
law based on the facts of this particular case.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
(Docket No. 105) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant LandAmerica Transnation’s
Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 60) is GRANTED; and all claims made by Plaintiffs Fritts
and Burton are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

DATED: August 30, 2011

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- Page 2
11ORDERS\sky_2rnr.WPD