Opinion
Case No.: 18-CV-1642 W (AGS)
08-12-2019
TERA LISICKY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 25]; AND
(2) APPROVING MINOR'S COMPROMISE [DOC. 21]
This action arises from allegations against Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company ("USAA") for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff Tera Lisicky was injured in an automobile-related accident while 31-weeks pregnant. Her insurance claim to USAA was denied, and this action followed. (R&R [Doc. 25] 1.)
On July 18, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Schopler issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court approve the minor's compromise. (R&R [Doc. 25].) Judge Schopler ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed by July 31, 2019. (See id. [Doc. 25] 3.) No objections were filed. There has been no request for additional time to object.
A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and a respondent's objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) "makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise"); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). This rule of law is well-established within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R[.]") (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). // // // // // // // // // // // //
In light of the foregoing, the Court accepts Judge Schopler's recommendation and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 25] in its entirety.
Plaintiff's Petition to Approve the Minor's Compromise is GRANTED. [Doc. 21.]
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge