Navarro v. Gaslamp Tavern LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding the parties' joint motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The court adopted the recommendation and granted the motion, dismissing the action with prejudice as to all parties.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made. The order notes that no party filed an objection. While the order states the de novo standard, it correctly concludes that de novo review is not required for unobjected portions, citing Wang v. Masaitis and United States v. Reyna-Tapia. The adoption is procedurally sound. |
Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss“The Joint Motion of Dismissal (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all parties, including Does 1 through 10.” | unclear | agree with court The dismissal is based on a joint motion under Rule 41(a)(1). When parties jointly move to dismiss, the court typically grants the motion unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The order recites that the Magistrate recommended dismissal with prejudice. The court's adoption of this recommendation is consistent with the parties' agreement and the procedural posture. The specification that the dismissal is 'with prejudice' and includes 'Does 1 through 10' is a specific factual determination by the Magistrate that the District Court adopted. Without the text of the R&R or the motion itself, it is assumed the parties agreed to these terms. The decision follows from the law and the record recited (the joint motion and R&R). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). It correctly notes that no objections were filed and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Wang and Reyna-Tapia) to support the conclusion that de novo review is not required for unobjected portions. The court then adopts the R&R and grants the joint motion to dismiss. The reasoning is concise but legally accurate for a procedural order adopting an R&R on a joint motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY NAVARRO, Case No.: 18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 GASLAMP TAVERN LLC d/b/a GASLAMP TAVERN, BAHYAG 14 INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 18 by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo (ECF No. 36), pursuant to Plaintiff 19 and Defendant Gaslamp Tavern LLC d/b/a Gaslamp Tavern’s Joint Motion of Dismissal 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) (EFC No. 27), recommending that 21 the Parties’ request that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice as to all 22 parties be granted. 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 26 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 27 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 28 1 || district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 2 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 3 ||2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 4 ||(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 5 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 6 || correct.”’). 7 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 8 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties. 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is 10 || adopted in its entirety. The Joint Motion of Dismissal (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. This 11 action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all parties, including Does 1 through 10. Each 12 || Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 13 || Dated: September 4, 2019 Nitta Ze. A a 14 Hon, William Q. Hayes 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28