Opinion
16cv1592 TWR (JLB)
06-30-2021
KYLE ROBERT JAMES, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA LEE, et al., [1] Defendants.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION, (2) DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, (3) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NOS. 180, 185, 187, 190)
Honorable Todd W. Robinson Judge.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 180), Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt's Order and Report and Recommendation (“R&R, ” ECF No. 185), Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (ECF No. 187), and Plaintiff and Defendant Mark Kania's Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint With Prejudice (“Joint Mot., ” ECF No. 190).
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt's R&R. (See R&R at 11 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than June 16, 2021). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Burkhardt's R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 185) and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 180).
Further, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 190) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action as against Defendant Mark Kania, with each Party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (ECF No. 187).
IT IS SO ORDERED.