Rademaker v. Juarez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID RADEMAKER, Case No.: 18-cv-1831-WQH-AGS

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 J. JUAREZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 HAYES, Judge: 16 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiff 17 David Rademaker (ECF No. 43) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the 18 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 57) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 19 Injunctive Relief. 20 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 21 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 23 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 24 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 26 recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 27 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 28 (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 1 |/review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 2 ||correct.”). 3 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 4 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 57) is 6 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 43) is denied. 7 || Dated: February 19, 2020 BME: ie Z. A a 8 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28