Opinion
2:11-cv-00997 JWS - JFM
2013-09-18
Jenghiz K. Stewart, Plaintiff, v. Medical Review Committee, et al., Defendants.
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re: Report and Recommendation
at doc. 57; Dismissal of Case]
I. MATTER PRESENTED
At docket 57, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf filed a report recommending that the court grant defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismiss this action with prejudice [docket 47]. The time for filing objections has run, and no objections have been filed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." When reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court reviews de novo conclusions of law and findings of fact to which parties object. The court reviews for clear error uncontested findings of fact.
Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.3d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).
Taberer v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).
--------
III. CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation under the standard of review articulated above, the court agrees with the magistrate judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the report and recommendation at docket 57. The motion at docket 47 is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
___________________
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE