Opinion
CV-04-1818-HU.
July 26, 2005
ORDER
In his Findings and Recommendation (Doc. #46) in this action, Magistrate Judge Hubel recommended that defendant Peter Helzer's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #31) this action against him be granted. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation were due by June 27, 2005. No objections were filed.
The matter is now before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten days of being served with a copy of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections, and the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which objections are made. Id. When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation of the magistrate. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-151 (1985); Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) ("If neither party contests the magistrate's proposed findings of fact, the court may assume their correctness and decide the motion on the applicable law.").
No clear error appears on the face of the record. Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. #46) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendant Peter Helzer's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #31) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.