Kendall v. Acer Inc et al
Filing
9
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Report and Recommendations; dismissing pla's complaint without prejudice; denying as moot 5 Petition for Parity filed by Gary Kendall,,. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO GARY KENDALL, Plaintiff, vs. ACER, INC., et al., Defendant. ) ) ) Case No. CV09-305-S-EJL ) ) ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT ) AND RECOMMENDATION ) ) ) )
On February 8, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8) in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Moreover, this Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made." Id. In United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C): The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, "to the extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless requested by the parties." Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939, 111 S.Ct. 2661 (internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 ("Absent an objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding."); see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39, 111 S.Ct. 2661 (clarifying that de novo review not required for Article III purposes unless requested by the parties) . . . . See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). In this case, no objections were filed so the Court need not conduct a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Page 1
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8 ) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, it is further ordered that Plaintiff's Petition for Parity (Docket No. 5) be DENIED as MOOT.
DATED: March 4, 2010
Honorable Edward J. Lodge U. S. District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Page 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
