Opinion
20-CV-2359 TWR (AGS)
10-14-2021
CODY SMITH; MICHELLE SMITH; C.S., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER; and A.S., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER, Plaintiffs, v. CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO HOUSING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LPC PENDLETON QUANTICO PM LP, a Delaware limited partnership; LINCOLN MILITARY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) APPROVING MINORS' COMPROMISE (ECF NOS. 29, 32)
Honorable Todd W. Robinson Judge United States District Court
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Petition for Minors' Compromise (“Pet., ” ECF No. 29), which is unopposed. (See ECF No. 30.) The Honorable Andrew G. Schopler has issued a Report and Recommendation to Approve Minors' Compromise (“R&R, ” ECF No. 32). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiffs' arguments and exhibits, Magistrate Judge Schopler's R&R, and the relevant law, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and APPROVES the Petition.
BACKGROUND
Magistrate Judge Schopler's R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying the instant Petition. (See R&R at 1-2.) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.
LEGAL STANDARD
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.”).
ANALYSIS
As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge Schopler's R&R. (See R&R at 5 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than September 22, 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error and that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors C.S. and A.S. is fair and reasonable and in their best interests. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler's R&R in its entirety and APPROVES Plaintiffs' Petition.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler's R&R (ECF No. 32) and APPROVES Plaintiffs' Petition (ECF No. 29). Accordingly, the minors' net recovery-$3,669.50 for C.S. and $2,206.72 for A.S.-SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED to Plaintiffs Cody and Michelle Smith to be held until the minors reach the age of majority.
IT IS SO ORDERED.