From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andres v. Davidson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Nov 5, 2019
No. LA CV 19-04754-VBF-SS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019)

Opinion

No. LA CV 19-04754-VBF-SS

11-05-2019

KEVIN ANDRES, Plaintiff, v. Correctional Officer DAVIDSON, Defendant.


ORDER Adopting the R & R

Dismissing the Action With Prejudice for Lack of Prosecution Directing Entry of Separate Judgment Terminating the Case (JS-6)

This is a California resident's civil-rights action. The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on September 11, 2019, CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 9, and the accompanying Notice of Filing (Doc 8) advised the parties that they had to file any objections to the R&R no later than September 25, 2019. Accordingly, plaintiff has not objected within the time allotted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires de novo review only of those parts of an R&R to which a party has timely objected. See Khan v. Langford, 2018 WL 1271204, *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) (citing, inter alia, US v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 Cir. 2003) (en banc)).

But the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that when no timely objection is filed, the Court should review the R&R "for clear error on the face of the record." Juarez, 2016 WL 2908238 at *2 (cite omitted); accord Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5 Cir. 1996) (en banc); Benitez v. Parmer, 654 F. App'x 502, 503 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Because Benitez thus made only a general objection, the district court reviewed the 2013 R&R for clear error.") (citing, inter alia, Adv. Comm. Notes to 1983 Am. of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).

On de novo or clear-error review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and implement her recommendations.

ORDER

The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 9] is ADOPTED.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice due to plaintiff's lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court order.

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), judgment will be a separate document.

The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 5, 2019

/s/_________

Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Andres v. Davidson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Nov 5, 2019
No. LA CV 19-04754-VBF-SS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019)
Case details for

Andres v. Davidson

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN ANDRES, Plaintiff, v. Correctional Officer DAVIDSON, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 5, 2019

Citations

No. LA CV 19-04754-VBF-SS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019)