Daniels v. Jenson et al

Filing 71

ORDER Adopting in its entirety 67 Report and Recommendation re 64 MOTION For Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by Karen Horton Bond. FURTHER ORDERED that 64 MOTION For Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/14/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

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

ROBERT A. DANIELS,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-298 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
MARC S. JENSON, et al.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation that

16

defendant Karen Horton Bond’s motion for determination of good faith settlement (doc. # 64) be

17

granted. (Doc. # 67). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

22

made.” Id.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objects were made); see also

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

to which no object was filed).

8

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

9

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

10

Horton Bond’s motion for determination of good faith settlement (doc. # 64), plaintiff Robert A.

11

Daniels’s notice of non-opposition (doc. # 66), and Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and

12

recommendation (doc. # 67), this court finds good cause to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in

13

full.

14

Accordingly,

15

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

16

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman granting Karen Horton Bond’s motion for

17

determination of good faith settlement (doc. # 67) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

18

entirety.

19
20
21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Karen Horton Bond’s motion for determination
of good faith settlement (doc. # 64) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED March 14, 2013.

22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-