Smith v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CODY SMITH; MICHELLE SMITH; Case No.: 20-CV-2359 TWR (AGS) C.S., a minor, by and through his guardian 12 ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER; and ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 A.S., a minor, by and through his guardian & RECOMMENDATION, AND ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER, (2) APPROVING MINORS’ 14 COMPROMISE Plaintiffs, 15 v. (ECF Nos. 29, 32) 16 CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO 17 HOUSING, LLC, a Delaware limited 18 liability company; LPC PENDLETON QUANTICO PM LP, a Delaware limited 19 partnership; LINCOLN MILITARY 20 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 21 1 through 50, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minors’ Compromise (“Pet.,” 26 ECF No. 29), which is unopposed. (See ECF No. 30.) The Honorable Andrew G. Schopler 27 has issued a Report and Recommendation to Approve Minors’ Compromise (“R&R,” ECF 28 No. 32). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments and exhibits, Magistrate Judge 1 Schopler’s R&R, and the relevant law, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and 2 APPROVES the Petition. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the 5 factual and procedural history underlying the instant Petition. (See R&R at 1–2.) This 6 Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 9 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 10 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 11 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 13 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 14 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 15 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 16 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 17 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 18 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 19 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 20 ANALYSIS 21 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge 22 Schopler’s R&R. (See R&R at 5 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than 23 September 22, 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- 24 reasoned, and contains no clear error and that the compromise and settlement of the claims 25 of the minors C.S. and A.S. is fair and reasonable and in their best interests. The Court 26 therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in its entirety and APPROVES 27 Plaintiffs’ Petition. 28 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R 3 ||(ECF No. 32) and APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Petition (ECF No. 29). Accordingly, the 4 ||minors’ net recovery—$3,669.50 for C.S. and $2,206.72 for ASS—SHALL BE 5 || DISTRIBUTED to Plaintiffs Cody and Michelle Smith to be held until the minors reach 6 || the age of majority. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 14, 2021 | Odd (2 re Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28