In the Matter of the Complaint of Star & Crescent Boat Co., dba Flagship Cruises & Events ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STAR & CRESCENT BOAT CO., Case No.: 21-cv-00482-WQH-BLM a Nevada corporation, dba 11 FLAGSHIP CRUISES & ORDER 12 EVENTS, 13 Plaintiff-in-Limitation, 14 v. 15 L.M., J.M., and J.M., minors by and through their guardian ad litem, Elena 16 Martinez, 17 Minor Claimants. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matters before the Court are the Petition for Approval of Settlement and 20 Compromise of Minors’ Claims filed by Elena Martinez, as Guardian ad Litem for Minor 21 Claimants L.M. (14-year-old), J.M.1 (11-year-old), and J.M.2 (7-year-old) (“Minor 22 Claimants”) (ECF No. 29), and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate 23 Judge (ECF No. 35) recommending that the Court grant the Petition for Approval of 24 Settlement and Compromise of Minors’ Claims. 25 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 26 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 28 1 || of the report... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 2 in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 3 ||636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 4 ||recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 5 |{n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) 6 || (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district Judge to 7 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 8 || correct.’’). 9 The parties have filed a Joint Stipulation to Waive Objections Period, which waives 10 |/the 14-day objection period and requests that “the Court adopt the Report and 11 |}Recommendation without further delay.” (ECF No. 36). The Court has reviewed the 12 Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35) is 14 ||adopted in its entirety. Minor Claimants’ Petition for Approval of Settlement and 15 || Compromise of Minors’ Claims (ECF No. 29) is granted. 16 |} Dated: October 26, 2021 Nitta Ze. A a 17 Hon, William Q. Hayes 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28