Feltmann v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
Filing
23
ORDER ADOPTING 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiffs claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and her wage and hour law claim are DISMISSED. 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
CHANEALE FELTMANN,
Case No. 1:11-CV-00414-EJL-MHW
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
v.
PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
On March 20, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 21) 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
(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 wellfounded in the law based on the facts of this particular case.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 21) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint in Part (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction
of emotional distress, and her wage and hour law claim are DISMISSED.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2
DATED: April 9, 2012
Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?