Opinion
Civil No. 10-1143 (ADC)
03-08-2012
NOEMI RODRIGUEZ-RIOS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Noemí Rodríguez-Ríos ("plaintiff") filed suit against the Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Norma Cruz-Echevarría (collectively, "defendants") alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other Federal and Puerto Rican statutes. ECF No. 1
On August 5, 2011, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which plaintiff timely opposed. ECF Nos. 31, 46. This court referred the pending motion for summary judgment to Magistrate-Judge Silvia Carreño-Coll ("Magistrate-Judge") on November 3, 2011 for Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 51.
Pending before the court is the Magistrate-Judge's unopposed Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), issued on November 21, 2011, which recommended granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 51. After reviewing the R & R, the court adopts the same, in full, and grants defendants' motion for summary judgment.
I. Standard of Review
A district court may refer pending motions to a magistrate-judge for a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D.P.R. Civ. R. 72(a). Any party adversely affected by the recommendation issued may file written objections within ten (10) days of being served with the report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is made." Sylva v. Culebra Dive Shop, 389 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191-92 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)).
"Absent objection, ... [a] district court ha[s] a right to assume that [the affected party] agree[s] to the magistrate's recommendation." López- Mulero v. Vélez-Colón, 490 F. Supp. 2d 214, 217 -218 (D.P.R. 2007) (citing Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021 (1985). Moreover, in conducting its review of an unopposed R & R, the court "needs only [to] satisfy itself by ascertaining that there is no ' plain error' on the face of the record." López-Mulero, 490 F. Supp. 2d at 218.
II. Conclusion
After careful consideration of the unopposed summary judgment, the R & R and the record, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation in full. Docket No. 53. Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Clerk of Court is to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
AIDA M. DELGADO-COLÓN
Chief United States District Judge