Opinion
Case No.: 3:10-cv-01146-ST
12-22-2011
ELEUTERIO SALDANA and RAFAEL LEON, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN K. SLINGLUFF; OPI CONTRACTING LLC; and JOHN C. NELSON, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SIMON, District Judge,
On December 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued findings and recommendations (#41) in the above-captioned case. Judge Stewart recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (#35) should be GRANTED in the sum of $30,758.33 for fees and $280.50 for costs against all Defendants jointly and severally. No party has filed objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the court may "accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
If, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard of review. In such cases, "[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report[.]" Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States, v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003) (the court must review de novo magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is made, "but not otherwise").
Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act "does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed," the court review the magistrate's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."
No party having made objections, this court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations (#41) for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations (#41) is ADOPTED.
________________________
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge