Garot v. County of San Diego

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS RAINEY AND JUDY Case No.: 3:19-cv-1650-L-BLM RAINEY, CO-CONSERVATORS, ON BEHALF OF COLLEEN GAROT, ORDER: 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiffs, RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO.] v. 228; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., (2) GRANTING EX PARTE Defendants. PETITION FOR ORDER 17 APPROVING SETTLEMENT INVOLVING INCOMPETENT ADULT [ECF NO. 203] 19 and (2) DENYING MOTION TO 21 EXPEDITE AS MOOT [ECF NO. 221] Pending before the Court in this action alleging civil rights violations under federal and state law by Defendants is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major [ECF No. 228], recommending granting Plaintiffs’ petition for order approving settlement involving incompetent adult and for distribution for settlement funds. [ECF No. 228.] The parties have filed a joint notice of non- opposition to the R&R. [ECF No. 229.] l A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a || dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the || parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court ||shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] ||to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. When no objections are filed, the de || novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute 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." United States v. || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

11 In light of the parties’ Non-Opposition, the Court adopts the R&R [ECF No. 228] 12 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Petition for Order Approving Settlement Involving Incompetent || Adult and for Distribution of Settlement Funds [ECF No. 203]. The Parties are |} ORDERED to comply with the terms of the settlement. The Ex Parte Motion to Expedite || Consideration of the Petition is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 221.]

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: March 28, 2023 cee ap 20 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge