Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Report and Recommendation (R&R) from a magistrate judge, to which no objections were filed, recommending the grant of a joint motion to withdraw an enforcement motion and vacate an order to show cause. The court adopted the R&R, granting the joint motion, withdrawing the plaintiffs' motion to enforce a permanent injunction, and discharging the order to show cause.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation (R&R)“In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the R&R.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for an unobjected R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Thomas v. Arn, United States v. Reyna-Tapia), the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review if no objections are filed, though it may do so. The court's decision to adopt the R&R in the absence of objections is procedurally sound. |
Grant of Joint Motion to Withdraw Enforcement Motion and Vacate Order to Show Cause“Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Withdraw Enforcement Motion and Vacate Order to Show Cause (doc. no. 346) is granted, including the request to withdraw of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Permanent Injunction (doc. no. 225), and discharge the Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt (doc. no. 249).” | unclear | agree with court The order does not explicitly state the substantive standard of review for the underlying motion (e.g., whether it was treated as a stipulation or a motion for relief from judgment). However, because the parties jointly moved to withdraw the enforcement action and vacate the contempt order, and the magistrate recommended granting it, the district court's adoption of this recommendation is consistent with the parties' agreement and the procedural posture. The court relied on the R&R's recommendation, which is permissible when no objections are raised. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for an unobjected R&R, citing the relevant statute and binding Ninth Circuit precedent. The court's decision to adopt the R&R and grant the joint motion follows logically from the lack of objections and the magistrate's recommendation. There are no gaps in the reasoning regarding the procedural mechanism.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VERONICA OLLIER, et al., Case No.: 07-cv-00714-L-JLB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION 14 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court in this action alleging violations of Title IX of the 18 Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”) is a Report and 19 Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt (doc. no. 352), 20 recommending to grant the Joint Motion to Withdraw Enforcement Motion and Vacate 21 Order to Show Cause (doc. no. 346), approve the withdrawal of Plaintiffs’ Motion to 22 Enforce Permanent Injunction (doc. no. 225), and discharge the Order to Show Cause 23 Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt (doc. no. 249). No objections have 24 been filed to the R&R. 25 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a 26 dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the 27 parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court 28 shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 1 || to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de 2 ||novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court 3 under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute 4 || makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and 5 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. 6 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 7 In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the R&R. Accordingly, the Joint 8 || Motion to Withdraw Enforcement Motion and Vacate Order to Show Cause (doc. no. 9 || 346) is granted, including the request to withdraw of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce 10 || Permanent Injunction (doc. no. 225), and discharge the Order to Show Cause Why 11 || Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt (doc. no. 249). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: July 28, 2020 15 H . James Lorenz, 6 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28