Toney v. Gwathey M.D.

Opinion

STEPHEN TONEY, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2786-WQH-KSC BOP No. 6832298 ORDER Plaintiff, v. DR. J. GWATHY; NOLTE RACHELLE, M.D.; WILLIAM LEWIS, II; MR. CHARLES SAMUELS, JR., Defendants. HAYES, Judge: The matters before the Court are the Motion for Order to Show Case for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 19) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 42). 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.”’). No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 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. 42) is adopted in its entirety. The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 19) is denied. } Dated: September 25, 2019 BME: ie Z. A a Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court