Harris v. U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER Adopting 53 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Weltonia Harris' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Related Orders 47 / 48 are GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the final fairness hearing, and the scheduling therefor, be remanded to Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

WELTONIA HARRIS,

9
10
11

2:10-CV-1508 JCM (VCF)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
U.S. PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cam

16

Ferenbach (doc. #53) regarding plaintiff Weltonia Harris’ motion for preliminary approval of class

17

action and related orders (docs. #47 and #48). No objections to the report and recommendation have

18

been filed.

19

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

20

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

21

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

22

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

23

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

24

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all

25

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

26

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

27

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the

2

district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see

3

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s

4

decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

5

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s

6

recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g.,

7

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation

8

to which no objection was filed).

9

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

10

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation

11

and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate’s findings in

12

full.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

15

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (doc. #53) be, and the same hereby are,

16

ADOPTED in their entirety.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Weltonia Harris’ motion for preliminary approval

18

of class action settlement and related orders (docs. #47 and #48) be, and the same hereby are,

19

GRANTED.

20
21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final fairness hearing, and the scheduling therefor, be
remanded to Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach.
DATED August 9, 2012.

23
24
25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-