Goodlett v. Delgado

Opinion

Randall GOODLETT, Case No.: 19-cv-01922-AJB-AGS Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND Ramiro DELGADO, et al., RECOMMENDATION; Defendants.

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND

(3) CLOSING THIS CASE (Doc. Nos. 27, 36)

Presently before the Court is Defendant Ramiro Delgado’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 27.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which was issued on November 15, 2021. (Doc. No. 36.) The R&R recommends granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Id. at 5.) The parties were instructed to file written objections with the Court on or before November 29, 2021, and a reply to the objections no later than December 13, 2021. (Id.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in /its entirety; and (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is /instructed to CLOSE this case. Dated: December 7, 2021 © ¢ Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia United States District Judge