Rossmann v. Huvelle et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 . This matter is hereby DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY as to all parties. 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 (dmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BRUD ROSSMANN, an individual and as
sole Managing Member, Sawtooth Capital,
LLC.,

Case No. 1:12-CV-0092-EJL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff,
v.
ELLEN S. HUVELLE, U.S. District Judge
for the District of Columbia, et al.,
Defendants.

The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this
matter. (Dkt. 10.) 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 Amay 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 Ashall 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
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

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, Ato 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 (AAbsent
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) . . . .
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). AWhen 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

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

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. 10) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its
entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 7) as to Sawtooth
Capital is DENIED.

2.

This matter is hereby DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY as to all parties.

DATED: November 19, 2012

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3