Olive v. Robinson

W.D. Washington

Olive v. Robinson

DecidedJuly 6, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-00356

StatusUnknown

This text of Olive v. Robinson (Olive v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olive v. Robinson, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 OSCAR LEE OLIVE IV, CASE NO. C20-0356JLR-BAT 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 HAYLEY MARIE ROBINSON, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United 16 States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida (R&R (Dkt. # 27)). Having carefully 17 reviewed the foregoing, all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court 18 ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 27) and DISMISSES Defendant 19 Hayley Marie Robinson’s counterclaim. 20 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 21 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 22 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 1 objected to.” Id. The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and 2 recommendation to which specific written objection is made. United States v. 3 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). When no objections are

4 filed, the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. Wang v. 5 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). 6 Here, no party has objected to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s Report and 7 Recommendation. (See Dkt.) Thus, the court need not review de novo the Report and 8 Recommendation. See Wang, 416 F.3d at 1000. Moreover, the court has examined the

9 record before it, including Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation, 10 and finds the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. 11 Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The Clerk is DIRECTED to 12 send copies of this order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida. 13 Dated this 6th day of July, 2021.

14 A 15 16 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 OSCAR LEE OLIVE IV, CASE NO. C20-0356JLR-BAT 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 HAYLEY MARIE ROBINSON, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United 16 States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida (R&R (Dkt. # 27)). Having carefully 17 reviewed the foregoing, all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court 18 ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 27) and DISMISSES Defendant 19 Hayley Marie Robinson’s counterclaim. 20 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 21 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 22 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 1 objected to.” Id. The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and 2 recommendation to which specific written objection is made. United States v. 3 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). When no objections are

4 filed, the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. Wang v. 5 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). 6 Here, no party has objected to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s Report and 7 Recommendation. (See Dkt.) Thus, the court need not review de novo the Report and 8 Recommendation. See Wang, 416 F.3d at 1000. Moreover, the court has examined the

9 record before it, including Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation, 10 and finds the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. 11 Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The Clerk is DIRECTED to 12 send copies of this order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida. 13 Dated this 6th day of July, 2021.

14 A 15 16 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Olive v. Robinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olive-v-robinson-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack