Davis v. City of Idaho Falls et al

Filing 101

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Report and Recommendation entered on December 27, 2019 (Dkt. 100 ) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Davis' Motion to Enforce Settlement (Dkt. 94 ) is GRANTED. Within fourte en (14) days of the date of this Order, the remaining parties mustexecute Davis' proposed Settlement and Release Agreement (Dkt. [97-4]) andsatisfy the terms as stated therein. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BRIANNA DAVIS,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00550-DCN
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTIONG REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, a municipal
corporation; TAUTPHAUS PARK ZOO,
a department of the City of Idaho Falls;
RAYMOND PROBERT, an employee of
the CITY OF IDAHO FALLS and
TAUTPHAUS PARK ZOO; LINDA
BEARD, in her official capacity as
Tautphaus Park Zoo Supervisor; and
ALYSSA ROD, in her official capacity
as Tautphaus Park Zoo Supervisor
Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION
On December 27, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Dkt. 100), recommending that Plaintiff Brianna
Davis’ Motion to Enforce Settlement (Dkt. 94) be granted.
Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s proposed recommendation by filing
written objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the same. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule 72.1(b). No
objections have been filed in this case and the matter is now ripe for the Court's
consideration.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

II. LEGAL STANDARD
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.” Where
the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) as
follows:
[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. Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th
Cir. 2005).
Further, 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) (stating that objections are waived
if they are not filed within fourteen days of service of the report and recommendation).
Thus, “[w]hen 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.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. United States
Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

III. DISCUSSION
The relevant procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in the
Report and the Court incorporates the same in this Order.
This Court has reviewed the entire Report for clear error and finds none. Moreover,
this Court agrees with the Report’s discussion of the applicable law, analysis, reasoning,
and conclusions. For these reasons, the Court will adopt the Report and grant the respective
Motion to Enforce Settlement.
V. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation entered on December 27, 2019 (Dkt. 100) is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
2. Davis’ Motion to Enforce Settlement (Dkt. 94) is GRANTED
3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the remaining parties must
execute Davis’ proposed Settlement and Release Agreement (Dkt. 97-4) and
satisfy the terms as stated therein.

DATED: January 28, 2020
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3