Opinion
Case No.: 18-cv-2729 W (LL)
06-30-2020
GAVIN JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 53], AND
(2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF GAVIN JONES WITH PREJUDICE
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez's report and recommendation recommending the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff Gavin Jones. (The "Report" [Doc. 53].) The recommended dismissal is based on the failure of Plaintiff Jones to prosecute this action, which included the failure to appear at several conferences / hearings with Judge Lopez. (Id. 2:23-3:6, 4:23-27.) The Report also ordered any objections to the Report filed no later than June 22, 2020. (Id. 5:1-2.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.
A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and a respondent's objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) "makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise") (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). This rule of law is well-established within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.") (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so, and holding that, "accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety."); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Lopez's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 53] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Gavin Jones.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 30, 2020
/s/_________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge