Cejas v. Paramo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANDREW CEJAS, Case No.: 14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,, 14 Defendants. 15 HAYES, Judge: 16 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 17 by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo (ECF No. 115), recommending that 18 Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status and Dismiss Case (ECF No. 106) be 19 denied. 20 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 21 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 23 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 24 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 25 district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 26 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 27 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 28 1 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 2 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”’). 3 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 4 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 115) is 6 || adopted in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's IFP Status and Dismiss 7 || Case (ECF No. 106) is DENIED. 8 || Dated: October 8, 2019 BE: te Z. A a 9 Hon, William Q. Hayes 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28