Grafton v. EMI Products, LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 65 Report and Recommendations,,denyiing 22 Motion to Dismiss filed by EMI Products, LLC, Electro-Mechanical Industries, Inc., Fallon Egan. 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

HENRY L. GRAFTON,
Case No. 2:11-CV-0048-EJL
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
EMI PRODUCTS, LLC, FALLON
EGAN, and ELECTRO-MECHANICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.

On November 22, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle issued a
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 65) 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):

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 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. 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,
111 S.Ct. 2661 (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, 111 S.Ct. 2661 (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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No.
65) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 22) is DENIED.
DATED: December 13, 2011

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2