Opinion
3:22-cv-01533-YY
04-27-2024
LLOYD STEINBERG and SCOTT, MUSTRIC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SCHMITT INDUSTRIES, INC., ANN M. FERGUSON, MICHAEL R. ZAPATA, PHILIP BOSCO, and JAMIE SCHMIDT, Defendants.
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation on February 2, 2024, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case with prejudice. F&R, ECF 46. Judge You also recommends granting Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibits 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 15; relying on Defendants' more complete submissions for Exhibits 5 and 8; and denying Plaintiffs' request as to Exhibits 12 and 13. Id. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court finds no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation [46]. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [30] is granted, Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice [36] is granted in part and denied in part, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.