Opinion
No. 6:16-cv-00849-JR
01-03-2017
JANET BACA, Plaintiff, v. TLC Federal Credit Union, Defendant.
ORDER :
On November 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Russo filed Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 21) recommending this Court dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The F&R is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. I review de novo those portions of the F&R to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004). For those portions of the R&R to which no party objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I review those parts of the F&R for "clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Russo's purported failure to adequately incorporate five facts into the F&R, though she concedes that Judge Russo "allude[d]" to some of those facts. Pl.'s Obj. to F&R 1. Plaintiff offers no legal argument to explain the significance of those facts or how addressing them at more length would have changed Judge Russo's analysis. By merely listing five facts in her objection, plaintiff waived her right to de novo review. See United States v. Murgia-Rodriguez, 815 F.3d 566, 573 (9th Cir. 2016) (party waives an argument by failing to "advance a developed theory" about its legal significance); United States v. Adams, 625 F.3d 371, 378 (7th Cir. 2010) ("By failing to develop his argument in any meaningful way, he has waived it.")
I find no clear error on the face of the record. I ADOPT Judge Russo's F&R (doc. 21). Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (doc. 14) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 3RD day of January 2017.
/s/_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge