1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SANTOS DOMINGUEZ, III, et al., Case No.: 18-CV-2872 W (KSC)

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 10 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 11 HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22]; DOES 1-20, 12 AND Defendants. 13 (2) APPROVING MINOR’S 14 COMPROMISE [DOC. 16]

15 16 On November 13, 2018, Plaintiff Santos Dominguez, III, by and through his parent 17 and Guardian Ad Litem, Veronica Dominguez, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of 18 California, County of San Diego, North County Division. [Doc. 1-2.] Hobby Lobby 19 removed the matter to this Court on December 21, 2018. [Doc. 1.] Hobby Lobby 20 answered the complaint on March 15, 2019. [Doc. 6.] 21 On June 13, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major was randomly 22 assigned to handle the Minor’s Compromise. [Doc. 10.] Judge Major issued a Report 23 and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court approve the minor’s 24 compromise. (R&R [Doc. 22].) Judge Major further ordered that any objections to the 25 R&R be filed by October 7, 2019. (See id. [Doc. 22] 3.) No objections were filed. There 26 has been no request for additional time to object. 27 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 28 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 1 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

(b)(1). When no objections are 2 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 3 ||recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) 4 || (reasoning that

(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must 5 review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 6 || but not otherwise”); Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003) 7 (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to 8 ||review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both the 9 || Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 10 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is 11 |}made to the R & R[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia,

); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 12 || F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review 13 || because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also 14 || Nichols v. Logan,

(S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 15 In light of the foregoing, the Court accepts Judge Major’s recommendation and 16 || ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 22] in its entirety. 17 Plaintiff's Petition to Approve the Minor’s Compromise is GRANTED. 18 || [Doc. 16.] 19 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: October 8, 2019 \ 22 ihe Dor 23 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan United States District Judge 25 26 27 28