G.C. v. San Diego Unified School District

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G.C., an individual, Case No.: 3:21-cv-19-L-BGS

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (ECF 15) AND 14 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 15 DISTRICT, TO DISMISS (ECFs 12 & 14). 16 Defendant. 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and motion to approve 18 settlement. (ECFs 12 and 14). 19 On August 17, 2021, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a Report and 20 Recommendation for an order approving the settlement. (ECF 15). The deadline to file an 21 objection to the Report and Recommendation was August 31, 2021. Id.1 No party filed an 22 objection. (See Docket). 23 24 25 26

27 1 Defendants have not filed an appearance in this matter. (See Docket). Linda Clark is Plaintiff’s 28 l Judge Skomal determined the proposed settlement — $108,500 — is fair and 2 ||reasonable. (ECF 15). The settlement provides that Plaintiff shall receive $89,000. Id. 3 || Plaintiff's counsel shall receive $19,500 as compensation. Jd. 4 The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation.’ It is thorough and well- 5 ||reasoned. The Court agrees with Judge Skomal’s legal and factual determinations. 6 || Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF 15) in full and 7 incorporates it into this Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. The settlement is approved. The 8 || Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF 12) and motion to approve settlement 9 || (ECF 14). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c); Civ. L. R. 17.1; Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 10 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). 11 || Pursuant to the settlement agreement, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 12 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: September 3, 2021 fee Soop 16 H . James Lorenz, 17 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Although there is no objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-1122 (9th Cir. 2003).