Watkins v. University Medical Center

Filing 43

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 42 Judge Leen's report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice with each side responsible for its own costs and attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 12/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 BEVERLY J. WATKINS, 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-01105-APG-PAL ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF. NO. 42) 9 10 On November 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Leen entered an order granting defendant 11 University Medical Center’s motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, although she 12 denied the request for sanctions. ECF No. 42. Judge Leen also recommended that this case be 13 dismissed with prejudice with each side responsible for its own attorney’s fees and costs. Id. 14 No one filed an objection to Judge Leen’s order or her recommendation. Thus, I am not 15 obligated to conduct a de novo review of the recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring 16 district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 17 proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 18 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 19 and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). I 20 nevertheless conducted a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Judge Leen sets forth the proper 21 legal analysis and factual basis for the decision. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Leen’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 23 42) is accepted. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice with each side responsible for its own 24 costs and attorney’s fees. 25 DATED this 8th day of December, 2017. 26 27 28 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?