Opinion
No. 03:13-cv-00613-ST
05-14-2013
ORDER
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#4) on April 19, 2013, in which she recommends that this Court dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The matter is now before me 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, I am relieved of my 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, I find no error.
In a May 6, 2013 filing, Plaintiff seeks a "30 day extention [sic] of time to fulfill the findings and recommendation that Magistrate Judge Steward in the order." Mtn for Ex. [dkt #7]. Plaintiff further states that he intends to amend his Complaint and address the issues raised by Judge Stewart. Although this filing was docketed as a motion for extension of time to file objections to the Findings & Recommendation, I construe it as a motion to allow sufficient time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. So construed, I grant the motion and give Plaintiff thirty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [4]. Accordingly, the Complaint [1] is dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time [7] is construed as a motion to allow sufficient time to file an amended complaint and is granted. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this Order in which to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge