Karim v. American Airlines Incorporated

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Hemayeth Karim, No. CV-18-03185-PHX-JGZ (EJM)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 American Airlines Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation 16 (R&R) recommending that the District Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary 17 Judgment. Plaintiff has not filed an objection. 18 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court 19 “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which 20 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 21 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 22 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley 23 Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate 24 Judge's recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the 25 Magistrate Judge's factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on 26 the applicable law. Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing 27 Campbell v. United States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). Having reviewed the 28 record in this case, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Markovich’s recommendation. 1|| See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-54 (1985). Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Judge Markovich’s R&R (Doc. 35) is ADOPTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment || (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close 6 || the file in this action. 7 Dated this 26th day of September, 2019. 8 9 10 Pot, Spee ll Honorable Jennifer’(¥ 7fpps United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-