Summary
In Wheaton, the Colorado law firm of Hamilton and Faatz represented the two defendants in Wheaton Equip. Co. v. Franmar, Inc. & Franklin Tolbert, CV03-220-S-BLW (D. Idaho).
Summary of this case from Miesen v. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLPOpinion
Case No. CV08-276-S-EJL.
February 24, 2009
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 4, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24) in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had ten days in which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties.
Pursuant to 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." Moreover, this Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made." Id. In United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [ 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] 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. As the Peretz Court instructed, "to the extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless requested by the parties." Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939, 111 S.Ct. 2661 (internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 ("Absent an objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding."); see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39, 111 S.Ct. 2661 (clarifying that de novo review not required for Article III purposes unless requested by the parties). . . .See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005). In this case, no objections were filed so the Court need not conduct a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Franmar, Franklin Tolbert, Martha Tolbert, and Tolbert LLC (Docket No. 15) be DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Hamilton Faatz's (Docket No. 11) be GRANTED IN PART for lack of personal jurisdiction and DENIED IN PART AS MOOT to improper venue.