Paddock v. Otter et al

Filing 38

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 37 ) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety. 1. Defendant Parke Gordon LLCs Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b)(6) ( Dkt. 3 ) is GRANTED; 2. Defendant C.L. Butch Otter and Lawrence Wasdens Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 13 ) is GRANTED; 3. The Gem County Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 17 ) is GRANTED; and 4. Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed in its entirety. 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 (cjs) Modified on 9/13/2017 to correct Date Filed (cjs).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

KIM PADDOCK,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-00222-EJL-REB

v.

ORDER

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, LAWRENCE
WASDEN, GEM COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, and PARKE
GORDON LAW,
Defendant.

The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this
matter. (Dkt. 37.) 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.
The Ninth Circuit interprets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) as follows:

ORDER - 1

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. . . . “[T]o the extent de novo review
is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless
requested by the parties.” Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (2000)
(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 United States v. Ciapponi, 77 F.3d
1247, 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) . . . .
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (2003) (emphasis in original).
Furthermore, to the extent 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. Thus, 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 docket 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 - 2

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 37) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Defendant Parke Gordon LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b)(6) (Dkt.
3) is GRANTED;
2. Defendant C.L. “Butch” Otter and Lawrence Wasden’s Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. 13) is GRANTED;
3. The Gem County Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 17)
is GRANTED; and
4. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed in its entirety.
DATED: September 12, 2017

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge

ORDER - 3