Noot v. Noot

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO DONALD S. NOOT, SR., Case No. 1:21-cv-00155-BLW Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & v. RECOMMENDATION DAVID FRANK NOOT, Defendant.

INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Debora K.

Grasham’s Report & Recommendation (Dkt. 45). No objections were filed and the matter is thus ripe for this Court’s consideration. The Court will adopt the Report & Recommendation in its entirety, meaning that it will grant the Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Renewed Motion for Sanctions insofar as the Court will order the parties to sign and execute settlement documents. The Court will, however, deny the motion to the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 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.” Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where, however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. To the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived, and “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

DISCUSSION The relevant factual and procedural background are properly articulated in the Report & Recommendation and are incorporated into this Order. (Dkt. 45).

The Court has reviewed the entire Report & Recommendation and the record in this matter for clear error on the face of the record and none has been found. The Magistrate Judge articulated and applied the correct standard of law and this Court agrees with her thorough analysis across the board. In a nutshell, the plaintiff presented undisputed evidence that the parties have settled this matter. The defendant, however, has simply refused to sign the settlement agreement. Under these circumstances, the Court will order defendant to sign the settlement agreement forthwith, but the Court will decline to impose further sanctions or retain jurisdiction over this matter after the settlement documents have been signed.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the parties are ordered execute to settlement documents provided by Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days of this Order and shall satisfy the terms as stated therein.

2. The motion is DENIED insofar as the Plaintiff seeks to have this Court impose additional sanctions against Defendant and retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement after this matter is resolved. ii DATED: October 2, 2023 ° alll j } _ RE” U's District Court Judge ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION - 3