Jones v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 GAVIN JONES, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-2729 W (LL) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 53], 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., AND 15 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF GAVIN JONES WITH PREJUDICE 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez’s report and 21 recommendation recommending the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff Gavin Jones. 22 (The “Report” [Doc. 53].) The recommended dismissal is based on the failure of Plaintiff 23 Jones to prosecute this action, which included the failure to appear at several conferences 24 / hearings with Judge Lopez. (Id. 2:23–3:6, 4:23–27.) The Report also ordered any 25 objections to the Report filed no later than June 22, 2020. (Id. 5:1–2.) To date, no 26 objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file 27 an objection. 28 1 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 2 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 3 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 4 || filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 5 ||recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) 6 || (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 7 magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 8 || otherwise’) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 9 || Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 10 || obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 11 || within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 12 |/n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 13 || objection is made to the R & R.”’) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 14 || 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 15 || (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 16 || opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 17 ||Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 18 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 19 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Lopez’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 20 || Report [Doc. 53] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 21 ||incorporated herein by reference, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff 22 Gavin Jones. 24 ||Dated: June 30, 2020 \ 25 ihe Dor 26 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 7 United States District Judge 28