Garot v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending the approval of a settlement involving an incompetent adult, to which the parties filed a joint notice of non-opposition. The court adopted the R&R, granted the petition for settlement approval, and denied the motion to expedite as moot.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 228]“In light of the parties’ Non-Opposition, the Court adopts the R&R [ECF No. 228]” | 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) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R on a non-dispositive matter (or a dispositive matter where parties have not consented to final decision by the magistrate), the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review, though it may. The court cited Thomas v. Arn and United States v. Reyna-Tapia to support the proposition that de novo review is triggered by objections, not required in their absence. The adoption follows logically from the parties' joint non-opposition. |
Granting Plaintiffs’ Petition for Order Approving Settlement Involving Incompetent Adult and for Distribution of Settlement Funds [ECF No. 203]“GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Petition for Order Approving Settlement Involving Incompetent Adult and for Distribution of Settlement Funds [ECF No. 203].” | unclear | agree with court The order does not explicitly state the substantive standard of review for approving a settlement involving an incompetent adult (e.g., whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the ward). However, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R which recommended granting the petition. In the absence of objections, the district judge's adoption of the magistrate's recommendation is procedurally sound. The substantive merits are presumed to have been addressed in the R&R, which is not provided here, but the procedural mechanism of adoption is correct. |
Denying Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Consideration of the Petition [ECF No. 221] as moot“The Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Consideration of the Petition is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 221.]” | unclear | agree with court Denying a motion to expedite as moot is a standard procedural disposition when the underlying matter (the petition for settlement approval) is resolved in the same order. Since the petition was granted, the request to expedite its consideration is no longer necessary or relevant. This is a correct procedural ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections, citing binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority. The court's decision to adopt the R&R and grant the petition follows directly from the parties' joint non-opposition and the magistrate's recommendation. The denial of the motion to expedite as moot is a logical consequence of the resolution of the underlying petition. There are no gaps in the reasoning provided in the order itself, as it relies on the R&R for the substantive analysis.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS RAINEY AND JUDY Case No.: 3:19-cv-1650-L-BLM RAINEY, CO-CONSERVATORS, ON 12 BEHALF OF COLLEEN GAROT, ORDER: 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiffs, RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO.] 14 v. 228; 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., (2) GRANTING EX PARTE 16 Defendants. PETITION FOR ORDER 17 APPROVING SETTLEMENT INVOLVING INCOMPETENT 18 ADULT [ECF NO. 203] 19 and 20 (2) DENYING MOTION TO 21 EXPEDITE AS MOOT [ECF NO. 221]
22 Pending before the Court in this action alleging civil rights violations under federal 23 and state law by Defendants is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by 24 Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major [ECF No. 228], recommending granting Plaintiffs’ 25 petition for order approving settlement involving incompetent adult and for distribution 26 for settlement funds. [ECF No. 228.] The parties have filed a joint notice of non- 27 opposition to the R&R. [ECF No. 229.] 28 l A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a 2 || dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the 3 || parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court 4 ||shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 5 ||to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. When no objections are filed, the de 6 || novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court 7 under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute 8 makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and 9 || recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. 10 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 11 In light of the parties’ Non-Opposition, the Court adopts the R&R [ECF No. 228] 12 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Petition for Order Approving Settlement Involving Incompetent 13 || Adult and for Distribution of Settlement Funds [ECF No. 203]. The Parties are 14 |} ORDERED to comply with the terms of the settlement. The Ex Parte Motion to Expedite 15 || Consideration of the Petition is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 221.] 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: March 28, 2023 1 cee ap 20 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28