McCloud v. Bird-Hunt

Opinion

WILLIE MCCLOUD, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00618-WQH-JLB

ORDER Plaintiff, v. T. BIRD-HUNT, et al.,

Defendants. HAYES, Judge: The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17). The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. }2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated: February 11, 2020 itt Z. A a 1] Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court