IN THE DISTRICT COURT 1 FOR THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 2 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 50-cv-00038 Plaintiff, 4 ORDER 5 vs. DENYING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ADOPTING 6 4,352 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, REPORT AND RECOMMMENDATION, IN THE ISLAND OF GUAM, MARIANAS 7 ISLANDS AND PEDRO MARTINEZ ADA, AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR CONDEMNATION COMPENSATION et al., 8 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants. 9 10 I. INTRODUCTION 11 Before the Court are Jesus S.N. Quintanilla’s motions for condemnation compensation (ECF 12 Nos. 2971, 2974), and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that recommends denying 13 the motions without prejudice. (ECF No. 2975.) Also before the Court is Quintanilla’s objection to 14 15 the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 2977.) 16 II. BACKGROUND 17 On August 15, 2017, Quintanilla filed a motion for condemnation compensation. (First Mot. 18 for Compensation, ECF No. 2971.) In this motion, Quintanilla claims that he is an heir of Juan Perez 19 Quintanilla, and that Juan Perez Quintanilla owned Lot No. 5235, property subject to a leasehold 20 condemnation by the U.S. Government. (Id. at 2; ECF No. 2971-1 at 8.) As the heir, Quintanilla 21 argues that he is entitled to compensation that Juan Perez Quintanilla was entitled to as owner of Lot 22 No. 5235, but did not receive. (First Mot. for Compensation 2; Ex. to Mot. for Compensation 17-24, 23 ECF No. 2971-2; Ex. to Mot. for Compensation (cont’d), ECF No. 2971-3.) 1 On August 24, 2017, Quintanilla filed a substantially similar motion with the Court, again 2 requesting compensation owed due to the leasehold condemnation of Lot No. 5235. (ECF No. 2974.) 3 4 On August 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that 5 recommended the motions be denied without prejudice on the ground that Quintanilla had not 6 sufficiently demonstrated he was the “executor, administrator or personal representative of the estate 7 of Juan Perez Quintanilla under Guam law,” and therefore was not legally permitted to bring the claim. 8 (R&R 3, ECF No. 2975.) The R&R notified the parties, including Quintanilla, that they had fourteen 9 days from the date of service of the R&R to file objections. (Id.) The United States filed a response 10 concurring in the recommendation of the R&R. (ECF No. 2976.) Quintanilla acknowledged receipt 11 of service on September 1, 2017. Objections were due September 15, 2017. See

626(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Quintanilla belatedly filed a response on September 19, 2017, in 13 14 which he requests additional time for the Superior Court of Guam to decide his petition to serve as 15 administrator of the estate. (ECF No. 2977.) 16 III. LEGAL STANDARD 17 When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court 18 judge ‘shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to 19 which objection is made.”

(b)(1). The district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, 20 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

She need not 21 review any parts that are not objected to. United States v. Reyna–Tapia,

(9th 22 Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied,

(2003). 23 IV. DISCUSSION

5 The Court has reviewed the record and agrees with the recommendation from the Magistrate 3 Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P 17(b)(3) requires that a party suing in a representative capacity, as Quintanilla 4 |}is here, be permitted to bring the claim under the law “where the court is located,” which is Guam in 5 || this case. Guam law, as set forth in the R&R, states who acquires the property interests of a deceased, 6 || and these conditions must be met for an individual to file a claim in federal court under Fed. R. Civ.

Quintanilla appears to acknowledge that he has not satisfied these conditions, and has therefore petitioned the Superior Court of Guam for a letter of administrator to pursue this claim. His objection to the R&R on the ground that he needs more time for his petition for a letter of administrator is

therefore denied. Adopting the R&R in this case permits Quintanilla to refile his claims provided he

13 granted the appropriate legal status under Guam law. 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons set forth above, Quintanilla’s objection (ECF No. 2977) to the Report and 16 Recommendation is DENIED, and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2975) is ADOPTED. M7 It is ORDERED that the motions for condemnation compensation (ECF Nos. 2971, 2974) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 19 SO ORDERED on February 22, 2018. 20

RAMONA V. MANGLONA, Designated Judge 23 24