McClain v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER that 22 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 14 Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. The case is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice on notice from defendant that the $15,000 in consideration has been paid to plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 Report and Recommendation id DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/22/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

PAUL D. McCLAIN,

Case No. 2:14-CV-695 JCM (VCF)

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

ORDER

v.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court are Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation.
(Doc. # 22). Plaintiff McClain has not filed an objection and the deadline to do so has passed.

15

This matter involves Paul McClain’s employment-discrimination action against defendant

16

Corinthian Colleges. The parties negotiated a settlement offer. McClain accepted the settlement

17

offer verbally through his attorney, but did not sign it. Defendant filed a motion to enforce

18

settlement agreement. (Doc. # 14). Magistrate Judge Ferenbach issued his initial report and

19

recommendation on January 29, 2015, recommending the motion to enforce settlement agreement

20

be granted, except for the provisions relating to confidentiality, which are not enforceable. (Doc.

21

# 18).

22

Plaintiff McClain filed an emergency motion for reconsideration (doc. # 19), which

23

Magistrate Judge Ferenbach granted (doc. # 20).

24

Ferenbach affirmed his recommendation.

Upon reconsideration, Magistrate Judge

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3

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

4

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

5

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

6

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

7

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

8

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

9

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

10

(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are

11

not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no

12

objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation

13

without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a

14

magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

15
16

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, and in light of plaintiff’s

17
18

failure to object, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate’s findings in full.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

21

Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (doc. # 22) be, and the same here by are, ADOPTED in

22

full.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendant’s motion to enforce settlement agreement be

24

GRANTED, except for the provisions relating to confidentiality, which are not enforceable. The

25

case is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice on notice from defendant that the $15,000

26

in consideration has been paid to plaintiff.

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s previous report and
recommendation (doc. # 18) is DENIED as moot.
DATED April 22, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-