Koelbel v. Irvine et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 26 Report and Recommendations, granting 5 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Paul Bazeley, granting 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeff Abbott. 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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JOHN D. KOELBEL,
Case No. 2:11-CV-0038-EJL
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
ROBERT J.C. IRVINE, PAUL
BAZELEY, PETER D. NICKERSON,
BLUE SKIES AIR, LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company, JEFF
ABBOTT d/b/a ABBOTT AIRCRAFT
SERVICES,
Defendant.

On October 19, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 26) 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.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

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)
....
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. 26) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and
ADOPTED in its entirety.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Defendant Bazeley’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5) be GRANTED.
2. Defendant Irvine’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 7) be GRANTED.
3. Defendant Abbott’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 13) be GRANTED.

DATED: November 15, 2011

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3