Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE EVANS, by and through his Case No. 23-cv-0883-BAS-VET 12 guardian ad litem COLEEN CUSACK, 13 ORDER: Plaintiff, 14 (1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING v. REPORT AND 15 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et. al., RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 16 ENTIRETY (ECF No. 67); AND Defendants. 17 (2) GRANTING JOINT PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF 18 COMPROMISE OF CLAIM OF 19 INCOMPETENT PERSON (ECF No. 64) 20 21 Pending before the Court are Parties’ Joint Petition for Approval of Compromise of 22 Claim of Incompetent Person (“Joint Petition”) (ECF No. 64) and a Report and 23 Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford (“R&R”) 24 (ECF No. 67). For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Joint Petition and R&R. 25 (ECF Nos. 64, 67). 26 I. DISCUSSION 27 The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 1 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he statute makes it clear 2 that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 3 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 4 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 5 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district 6 court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution 7 nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 8 that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule 9 of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 10 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only 11 required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 12 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting R&R in its entirety without review 13 because neither party filed objections to the R&R despite the opportunity to do so); see 14 also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004). 15 In this case, Judge Crawford issued the R&R (ECF No. 67) on December 1, 2025, 16 recommending that this Court grant Parties’ Joint Petition (ECF No. 64). The time for 17 filing objections expired on December 16, 2025. (ECF No. 67 at 7:14-17.) Both parties 18 are represented by counsel. Neither party has filed any objections nor requested 19 additional time to do so. Hence, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See 20 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 21 Nonetheless, having conducted a review of the R&R, the Court concludes that 22 Judge Crawford’s reasoning is sound and correct in recommending that this Court grant 23 the Joint Petition (ECF No. 67). The Court agrees that substantial evidence supports that 24 the proposed settlement amount, fee distribution methods, and contingency fee agreement 25 are fair and reasonable. (See id.) Therefore, the Court approves and adopts the R&R. 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 27 II. CONCLUSION 28 In light of the foregoing, the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS IN ITS | || ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 67), GRANTS Parties’ Joint Petition (ECF No. 64). See 2 ||28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ~ 5 || DATED: December 17, 2025 (yatta Baphar □□ 6 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28