Jones v. Carraby

Opinion

WILLIAM JOSEPH JONES, Case No.: 18-cv-1609-AJB-WVG

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND CARRABY, et al., RECOMMENDATION; AND Defendants. (2) DENYING DEFENDANT DR. FOYLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. Nos. 28, 32)

Presently before the Court is Defendant Michael Foyle, O.D.’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 28.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which was issued on December 30, 2019. (Doc. No. 32.) The R&R recommends that Defendant’s motion be denied. (Id. at 9.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by January 18, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than February 8, 2020. (Id. at 9–10.) 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 note to the 1983 amendment; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003). Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R. 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 Gallo’s R&R in its entirety; (2) DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss. IT IS SO ORDERED. |! Dated: July 9, 2020 | | □□ rz Le Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia United States District Judge