Citizens of Idaho et al v. State of Idaho et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 12 Motion to Dismiss; All claims against Defendants State of Idaho; Ada County Sheriffs Department; and Gem County Sheriffs Department shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plas will be allowe d to file an amended complaint by 10/7/12 as to Defendants Bank of America, ReconTrust Company, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Failure to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. 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) (Copy of this order mailed to all pro se plas by dks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CITIZENS OF IDAHO (UI777),
FRANCES BRUCKNER,
JACQUELINE M. ANTONIE, RICK
ANDERSON, TAMLA RENCHER, and
UNKNOWN PLAINITFFS,

Case No. 1:11-CV-00620-EJL-LMB
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, BANK OF
AMERICA, ADA COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT, BANNOCK COUNTY
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, CANYON
COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
KOOTENAI COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT ANIMAL CONTROL
DIVISION, TWIN FALLS COUNTY
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, GEM
COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., and
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

United States Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle issued a Report and
Recommendation in this matter. (Dkt. 16.) 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 and the time for doing so has passed.
DISCUSSION
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.”
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. 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 ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, to
the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within
fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation). “When no timely objection
is filed, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
Cir.1974)).
In this case, no objections were filed so the Court is not required to conduct a de
novo determination of the Report and Recommendation. The Court has, however,
reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds no clear
error on the face of the record. Moreover, the Court finds the Report and
Recommendation is well-founded in the law based on the facts of this particular case and
this Court is in agreement with the same.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 16) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. All claims against Defendants State of Idaho; Ada County Sheriffs Department;

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3

Bannock County Sheriffs Department; Canyon County Sheriffs Department; Kootenai
County Sheriffs Department Animal Control Division; Twin Falls County Sheriffs
Department; and Gem County Sheriffs Department shall be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
2. Non-governmental Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12)1 shall be
GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs will be allowed thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an
amended complaint as to Defendants Bank of America, ReconTrust Company, and
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Failure to file an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days will result in dismissal of this action without further notice.

DATED: September 7, 2012

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

1

Defendants Bank of America, ReconTrust Company, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4